Bibliographic record
Abstract
The method for automatic theorem proving proposed in [Carnielli, W. A., Polynomial ring calculus for many-valued logics, Proceedings of the 35th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, IEEE Computer Society. Calgary, Canada (2005), 20–25], called Polynomial Ring Calculus , is an algebraic proof mechanism based on handling polynomials over finite fields. Although useful in general domains, as in first-order logic, certain non-truth-functional logics and even in modal logics (see [Agudelo, J. C., Carnielli, W. A., Polynomial Ring Calculus for Modal Logics: a new semantics and proof method for modalities, The Review of Symbolic Logic. 4 (2011), 150–170, URL: doi:10.1017/S1755020310000213 ]), the method is particularly apt for deterministic and non-deterministic many-valued logics, as shown here. The aim of the present paper is to show how the method can be extended to any finite-valued non-deterministic semantics, and also to explore the computational character of the method through the development of a software capable of translating provability in deterministic and non-deterministic finite-valued logical systems into operations on polynomial rings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".