MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finite Model Computation via Answer Set Programming

2011· article· en· W173884984 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Gebser, Orkunt Sabuncu, Torsten Schaub

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsComputationComputer scienceSolverAnswer set programmingSet (abstract data type)Domain (mathematical analysis)Extension (predicate logic)Theoretical computer scienceFinite setProgramming paradigmModel of computationMathematical optimizationAlgorithmProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show how Finite Model Computation (FMC) of first-order theories can efficiently and transparentlybe solved by taking advantage of an extension of Answer Set Programming, called incremental Answer Set Programming (iASP). The idea is to use the incremental parameter in iASP programs to account for the domain size of a model. The FMC problem is then successively addressed for increasing domain sizes until an answer set, representing a finite model of the original first-order theory, is found. We developed a system based on the iASP solver iClingo and demonstrate its competitiveness.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.103 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207