MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136410977 · doi:10.1109/icde.1991.131524

First-order logic reducible programs

2002· article· en· W2136410977 on OpenAlexaff
K. Wang, Li-Yan Yuan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransitive closureAssertionFixed pointComputer scienceArityLogical consequenceSecond-order logicClosure (psychology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Data integrityDiscrete mathematicsDirected acyclic graphSet (abstract data type)First-order logicTheoretical computer scienceLogic programmingProgramming languageIndependence (probability theory)Horn clauseLeast fixed pointMathematicsAlgorithmHigher-order logicFixed-point theoremDescription logicArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Programs for which the least fixed point exists are considered. A program is first-order logic reducible (FOL-reducible) with respect to a set of integrity constraints if all its valid fixed points are least fixed points. For an FOL-reducible program, a logical assertion about least fixed points is reduced to a logical assertion about all first-order logic models. This makes it possible to characterize, in the first-order logic, some important 'all states' properties of programs for which no proof procedures exist in general. This method is applied to the following properties: containment of programs, independence of updates with respect to queries and integrity constraints, and characterization and implication of integrity constraints in programs. It is shown that the transitive closure of a graph if FOL-reducible with respect to the constraint of acyclicity. The 'all states' framework requires a modification of the standard treatment of fixed points and completed programs.< <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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207