MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125861280 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3864

Probabilistic Arc Consistency: A Connection between Constraint Reasoning and Probabilistic Reasoning

2013· article· en· W2125861280 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicLocal consistencyConstraint (computer-aided design)GeneralizationConsistency (knowledge bases)Reasoning systemConnection (principal bundle)Computer scienceTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMathematical optimizationConstraint satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We document a connection between constraint reasoning and probabilistic reasoning. We present an algorithm, called {em probabilistic arc consistency}, which is both a generalization of a well known algorithm for arc consistency used in constraint reasoning, and a specialization of the belief updating algorithm for singly-connected networks. Our algorithm is exact for singly- connected constraint problems, but can work well as an approximation for arbitrary problems. We briefly discuss some empirical results, and related methods.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.142 · 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