Conditional and Composite Constraints with Preferences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preferences in constraint problems are common but signifi-cant in many real world applications. In this paper, we extend our conditional and composite CSP (CCCSP) framework, managing CSPs in a dynamic environment, in order to han-dle preferences. Unlike the existing CSP models managing one form of preferences, ours supports four types, namely: variable value and constraint preferences, composite pref-erences and conditional preferences. This offers more ex-pressive power in representing a wide variety of constraint problems. The preferences are considered here as a set of soft constraints using a c-semiring structure with combina-tion and projection operators. Solving constraint problems with preferences consists of finding a solution satisfying all the 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 CCCSPs with preferences, favor the MAC principle as the constraint propagation strat-egy to be used within the branch and bound procedure.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".