Managing Temporal Constraints with Preferences
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
Abstract Preferences in temporal problems are common but significant in many real world applications. In this paper, we extend our temporal reasoning framework, managing numeric and symbolic information, in order to handle preferences. Unlike the existing models managing single temporal preferences, ours supports four types of preferences, namely: numeric and symbolic temporal preferences, composite preferences and conditional preferences. This offers more expressive power in representing a wide variety of temporal constraint problems. The preferences are considered here as a set of soft constraints using a c-semiring structure with combination and projection operators. Solving temporal constraint problems with preferences consists in finding a solution satisfying all the temporal constraints while optimizing the preference values. This is handled by a variant of the branch and bound algorithm, we propose in this paper, and where constraint propagation is used to improve the time efficiency. Experimental tests, we conducted on randomly generated temporal constraint problems with preferences, favor a variant of MAC as the constraint propagation strategy that should be used within the branch and bound algorithm.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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