MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037783464 · doi:10.1145/1057387.1057389

Dealing with incomplete knowledge on CLP( <i>FD</i> ) variable domains

2005· article· en· W2037783464 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marco Gavanelli, Evelina Lamma, Paola Mello, Michela Milano

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Patient Safety Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceLocal consistencyConsistency (knowledge bases)Semantics (computer science)Domain (mathematical analysis)Set (abstract data type)Answer set programmingTheoretical computer scienceConstraint programmingProgramming languageConstraint logic programmingConstraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfactionArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constraint Logic Programming languages on Finite Domains, CLP( FD ), provide a declarative framework for Artificial Intelligence problems. However, in many real life cases, domains are not known and must be acquired or computed. In systems that interact with the outer world, domain elements synthesize information on the environment, they are not all known at the beginning of the computation, and must be retrieved through an expensive acquisition process.In this article, we extend the CLP( FD ) language by combining it with a new sort (called Incrementally specified Sets, I-Set ). In the resulting language, CLP( FD + I-Set ), FD variables can be defined on partially or fully unknown domains ( I-Set ). Domains can be linked each other through relations, and constraints can be imposed on them. We describe a propagation algorithm (called Known Arc Consistency (KAC)) based on known domain elements, and theoretically compare it with arc-consistency.The language can be implemented on top of different CLP systems, thus letting the user exploit different possible semantics for domains (e.g., lists, sets or streams). We state the specifications that the employed system should provide, and we show that two different CLP systems (Conjunto and { log }) can be effectively used.We provide motivating examples and describe promising applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Programming Languages and SystemsSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207