MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164902897 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2004.109

Solving conditional and composite temporal constraints

2005· article· en· W2164902897 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 (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfaction dual problemConstraint satisfactionConstraint satisfaction problemLocal consistencyComputer scienceMathematical optimizationVariable (mathematics)Constraint graphSet (abstract data type)Constraint programmingConstraint learningConstraint logic programmingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStochastic programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main challenges when designing constraint based systems in general and those involving temporal constraints in particular, is the ability to deal with conditional constraints and composite variables. Indeed, in this particular case the set of variables involved by the constraint problem to be solved is not known in advance. More precisely, while some variables (called initial variables) 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 variables whose values are the possible variables each composite variable can take. We propose a method based on constraint propagation for solving efficiently constraint problems involving numeric and symbolic temporal constraints, composite variables and activity constraints. We call these latter problems conditional and composite temporal constraint satisfaction problems (CCTCSPs). Experimental evaluation conducted on randomly generated CCTCSPs demonstrates the efficiency of our method to solve these problems especially when using the forward check strategy during the search.

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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207