MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147311058 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2005.14

A new temporal CSP framework handling composite variables and activity constraints

2005· article· en· W2147311058 on OpenAlexaff
Malek Mouhoub, Amrudee Sukpan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint satisfaction problemConstraint satisfactionConstraint satisfaction dual problemLocal consistencyConstraint graphConstraint (computer-aided design)Mathematical optimizationConstraint logic programmingComputer scienceConstraint programmingConstraint learningSet (abstract data type)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceStochastic programmingProbabilistic logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A well known approach to managing the numeric and the symbolic aspects of time is to view them as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Our aim is to extend the temporal CSP formalism in order to include activity constraints and composite variables. Indeed, in many real life applications the set of variables involved by the temporal constraint problem to solve is not known in advance. More precisely, while some temporal variables (called events) are available in the initial problem, others are added dynamically to the problem during the resolution process via activity constraints and composite variables. Activity constraints allow some variables to be activated (added to the problem) when activity conditions are true. Composite variables are defined on finite domains of events. We propose in this paper two methods based respectively on constraint propagation and stochastic local search (SLS) for solving temporal constraint problems with activity constraints and composite variables. We call these problems conditional and composite temporal constraint satisfaction problems (CCTCSPs). Experimental study we conducted on randomly generated CCTCSPs demonstrates the efficiency of our exact method based on constraint propagation in the case of middle constrained and over constrained problems while the SLS based method is the technique of choice for under constrained problems and also in case we want to trade search time for the quality of the solution returned (number of solved constraints)

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207