MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143436670 · doi:10.1109/time.1996.555700

Irrelevance in uncertain temporal reasoning

2002· article· en· W2143436670 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Y. Tawfik, Eric Neufeld

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProbabilistic logicRelevance (law)Computer scienceMarkov chainRepresentation (politics)Bayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceEvent (particle physics)Probabilistic relevance modelPhenomenonKnowledge representation and reasoningMarkov processMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the presence of uncertainty, relevance of information degenerates as time evolves. The work shows that this degeneration occurs in probabilistic temporal reasoning. A mechanism for analyzing this phenomenon uses a Markov chain representation and a degree of relevance measure called temporal extraneousness. Efficiency of probabilistic temporal reasoning can be improved by ignoring irrelevant and weakly relevant information. The analysis allows one to identify the portion of event history affecting the time instant of interest. The duration of relevant history depends on the dynamic nature of the system and the chosen relevance threshold. These notions are used to prune time-sliced Bayesian networks which constitute a popular probabilistic temporal reasoning knowledge representation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207