MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075882455 · doi:10.1142/s0218213004001673

A HOPFIELD-TYPE NEURAL NETWORK BASED MODEL FOR TEMPORAL CONSTRAINTS

2004· article· en· W2075882455 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial neural networkConstraint (computer-aided design)Hopfield networkScheduling (production processes)Type (biology)Constraint satisfaction problemProcess (computing)Property (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present an approximation method based on discrete Hopfield neural network (DHNN) for solving temporal constraint satisfaction problems. This method is of interest for problems involving numeric and symbolic temporal constraints and where a solution satisfying the constraints of the problem needs to be found within a given deadline. More precisely the method has the ability to provide a solution with a quality proportional to the allocated process time. The quality of the solution corresponds here to the number of satisfied constraints. This property is very important for real world applications including reactive scheduling and planning and also for over constrained problems where a complete solution cannot be found. Experimental study, in terms of time cost and quality of the solution provided, of the DHNN based method we propose provides promising results comparing to the other exact methods based on branch and bound and approximation methods based on stochastic local search.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.243 · 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