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 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
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