MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113885315 · doi:10.1109/lics.2005.51

Temporal Logics over Unranked Trees

2006· article· en· W2113885315 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Barceló, Leonid Libkin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnary operationDiscrete mathematicsMonadic predicate calculusComputer scienceMathematicsTree (set theory)Boolean functionCombinatoricsTheoretical computer scienceDescription logicHigher-order logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider unranked trees that have become an active subject of study recently due to XML applications, and characterize commonly used fragments of first-order (FO) and monadic second-order logic (MSO) for them via various temporal logics. We look at both unordered trees and ordered trees (in which children of the same node are ordered by the next-sibling relation), and characterize Boolean and unary FO and MSO queries. For MSO Boolean queries, we use extensions of the /spl mu/-calculus: with counting for unordered trees, and with the past for ordered. For Boolean FO queries, we use similar extensions of CTL*. We then use composition techniques to transfer results to unary queries. For the ordered case, we need the same logics as for Boolean queries, but for the unordered case, we need to add both past and counting to the /spl mu/-calculus and CTL*. We also consider MSO sibling-invariant queries, that can use the sibling ordering but do not depend on the particular one used, and capture them by a variant of the /spl mu/-calculus with modulo quantifiers.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207