MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115590028 · doi:10.1109/tai.1994.346460

Minimal forward checking

2002· article· en· W2115590028 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicConstraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfaction problemComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Constraint satisfactionVariable (mathematics)Random variableMathematical optimizationSelection (genetic algorithm)AlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forward Checking (FC) is a highly regarded complete search algorithm used to solve constraint satisfaction problems. In this paper a lazy variant of FC called minimal forward checking (MFC) is introduced. MFC is a natural marriage of incremental FC and backchecking. Given a variable selection heuristic which does not depend on domain size MPC's worst case performance on any CSP instance is the number of constraint checks performed by FC. Experiments using hard random problems are presented which show that MFC outperforms FC especially for problems with large domain sizes and/or a large number of variables.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207