MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185574792

Belief change and base dependence

2014· article· en· W2185574792 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrdad Oveisi, James P. Delgrande, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Fred Popowich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntuitionFormalism (music)Belief revisionComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A strong intuition for AGM belief change operations, Gärdenfors suggests, is that formulas that are independent of a change should remain intact. Based on this intuition, Farias and Herzig axiomatize a dependence relation w.r.t. a belief set, and formalize the connection between dependence and belief change. In this paper, we introduce base depen-dence as a relation between formulas w.r.t. a belief base. After an axiomatization of base dependence, we formalize the con-nection between base dependence and a particular belief base change operation, saturated kernel contraction. Moreover, we prove that base dependence is a reversible generalization of Farias and Herzig’s dependence. That is, in the special case when the underlying belief base is deductively closed (i.e., it is a belief set), base dependence reduces to dependence. Finally, an intriguing feature of Farias and Herzig’s formalism is that it meets other criteria for dependence, namely, Keynes’ conjunction criterion for dependence (CCD) and Grdenfors’ conjunction criterion for independence (CCI). We show that our base dependence formalism also meets these criteria. More interestingly, we offer a more specific criterion that implies both CCD and CCI, and show our base dependence formalism also meets this new criterion.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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