MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562472473

Semantics for a useful fragment of the situation calculus

2005· article· en· W1562472473 on OpenAlex

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

VenueRWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituation calculusFragment (logic)Calculus (dental)Modal logicComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Modal operatorFirst-order logicModalProgramming languageMultimodal logicDescription logic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent paper, we presented a new logic called ES for reasoning about the knowledge, action, and perception of an agent. Although formulated using modal operators, we argued that the language was in fact a dialect of the situation calculus but with the situation terms suppressed. This allowed us to develop a clean and workable semantics for the language without piggybacking on the generic Tarski semantics for first-order logic. In this paper, we reconsider the relation between ES and the situation calculus and show how to map sentences of ES into the situation calculus. We argue that the fragment of the situation calculus represented by ES is rich enough to handle the basic action theories defined by Reiter as well as Golog. Finally, we show that in the full second-order version of ES, almost all of the situation calculus can be accommodated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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