Variable-specific resolutions for feature interactions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems assembled from independently developed features suffer from feature interactions, in which features affect one another's behaviour in surprising ways. The feature-interaction problem states that the number of potential interactions is exponential in the number of features in a system. Resolution strategies offer general strategies that resolve entire classes of interactions, thereby reducing the work of the developer who is charged with the task of resolving interactions. In this paper, we focus on resolving interactions due to conflict. We present an approach, language, and implementation based on resolution modules in which the developer can specify an appropriate resolution for each variable under conflict. We performed a case study involving 24 automotive features, and found that the number of resolutions to be specified was much smaller than the number of possible feature interactions (6 resolutions for 24 features), that what constitutes an appropriate resolution strategy is different for different variables, and that the subset of situation calculus we used was sufficient to construct nontrivial resolution strategies for six distinct output variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it