MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W123456301

Formal Description Techniques for CSPs and TCSPs.

2004· article· en· W123456301 on OpenAlexaff
Malek Mouhoub, Samira Sadaoui, Amrudee Sukpan

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConstraint satisfaction problemConstraint satisfactionScheduling (production processes)Theoretical computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Model checkingSet (abstract data type)Constraint (computer-aided design)Formal specificationTemporal logicProgramming languageMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LOTOS is a formal specification technique for describing and verifying complex systems. In this paper, we investigate the applicability of LOTOS to specify and solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) as well as Temporal Constraint Satisfaction Problems (TCSPs). A CSP is a general framework used to represent and solve a large variety of combinatorial problems including frequency assignment, configuration and conceptual design, network management and transportation. A TCSP is one particular case of CSPs, where constraints are temporal relations between temporal variables defined over a set of time intervals. TCSPs are used to handle problems involving temporal constraints such as scheduling, planning and computational linguistics. Through simulation and model-checking verification, we show, in this paper, how to solve CSPs and TCSPs using LOTOS specifications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Engineering and Knowledge EngineeringSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207