Level Mapping Induced Loop Formulas for Weight Constraint and Aggregate Logic Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Level mapping and loop formulas are two different means to justify and characterize answer sets for normal logic programs. Both of them specify conditions under which a supported model is an answer set. Though serving a similar purpose, in the past the two have been studied largely in isolation with each other. In this paper, we study level mapping and loop formulas for weight constraint and aggregate (logic) programs. We show that, for these classes of programs, loop formulas can be devised from level mapping characterizations. First, we formulate a level mapping characterization of stable models and show that it leads to a new formulation of loop formulas for arbitrary weight constraint programs, without using any new atoms. This extends a previous result on loop formulas for weight constraint programs, where weight constraints contain only positive literals. Second, since aggregate programs are closely related to weight constraint programs, we further use level mapping to characterize the underlying answer set semantics based on which we formulate loop formulas for aggregate programs. The main result is that for aggregate programs not involving the inequality comparison operator, the dependency graphs can be built in polynomial time. This compares to the previously known exponential time method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".