MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W148231196 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9752

SAT-Based Strategy Extraction in Reachability Games

2015· article· en· W148231196 on OpenAlex
Niklas Eén, Alexander Legg, Nina Narodytska, Leonid Ryzhyk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAustralian GovernmentAustralian Research CouncilIntel Corporation
KeywordsReachabilityComputer scienceCounterexampleFormalism (music)Game treeSequential gameTree traversalCombinatorial game theoryTheoretical computer scienceTree (set theory)Game theoryAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reachability games are a useful formalism for the synthesis of reactive systems. Solving a reachability game involves (1) determining the winning player and (2) computing a winning strategy that determines the winning player's action in each state of the game. Recently, a new family of game solvers has been proposed, which rely on counterexample-guided search to compute winning sequences of actions represented as an abstract game tree. While these solvers have demonstrated promising performance in solving the winning determination problem, they currently do not support strategy extraction. We present the first strategy extraction algorithm for abstract game tree-based game solvers. Our algorithm performs SAT encoding of the game abstraction produced by the winner determination algorithm and uses interpolation to compute the strategy. Our experimental results show that our approach performs well on a number of software synthesis benchmarks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.182 · 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