MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041091076 · doi:10.1145/502102.502106

Interval arithmetic

2001· article· en· W2041091076 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. Hickey, Qun Ju, M. H. van Emden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterval arithmeticInterval (graph theory)ArithmeticMultiplication (music)Affine arithmeticDivision (mathematics)SubtractionArbitrary-precision arithmeticSaturation arithmeticMathematicsReal numberSecond-order arithmeticSet (abstract data type)Floating pointAlgorithmComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We start with a mathematical definition of a real interval as a closed, connected set of reals. Interval arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) are likewise defined mathematically and we provide algorithms for computing these operations assuming exact real arithmetic. Next, we define interval arithmetic operations on intervals with IEEE 754 floating point endpoints to be sound and optimal approximations of the real interval operations and we show that the IEEE standard's specification of operations involving the signed infinities, signed zeros, and the exact/inexact flag are such as to make a correct and optimal implementation more efficient. From the resulting theorems, we derive data that are sufficiently detailed to convert directly to a program for efficiently implementing the interval operations. Finally, we extend these results to the case of general intervals, which are defined as connected sets of reals that are not necessarily closed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations339
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the ACMSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207