MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112222293

Reasoning about large taxonomies of actions

2008· article· en· W2112222293 on OpenAlexaff
Yilan Gu, Mikhail Soutchanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiomComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceRepresentation (politics)Set (abstract data type)Modular designDomain (mathematical analysis)Operator (biology)Projection (relational algebra)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithmProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We design a representation based on the situation calculus to facilitate development, maintenance and elaboration of very large taxonomies of actions. This representation leads to more compact and modular basic action theories (BATs) for reasoning about actions than currently possible. We compare our representation with Reiter’s BATs and prove that our rep-resentation inherits all useful properties of his BATs. More-over, we show that our axioms can be more succinct, but ex-tended Reiter’s regression can still be used to solve the projec-tion problem (this is the problem of whether a given logical expression will hold after executing a sequence of actions). We also show that our representation has significant compu-tational advantages. For taxonomies of actions that can be represented as finitely branching trees, the regression oper-ator can work exponentially faster with our theories than it works with Reiter’s BATs. Finally, we propose general guide-lines on how a taxonomy of actions can be constructed from the given set of effect axioms in a domain.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207