MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262254779

Modeling, Global Constraints, and Decomposition

2013· article· en· W2262254779 on OpenAlexaff
J. Christopher Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Abstraction, Reformulation and Approximation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint programmingComputer scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)Mathematical optimizationDecompositionConstraint satisfaction problemSolverTheoretical computer scienceLocal consistencyConcurrent constraint logic programmingCombinatorial optimizationConstraint logic programmingConstraint satisfactionMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmProgramming languageStochastic programming
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike mathematical programming and SAT solving, ConstraintProgramming (CP) is based on the idea that both modeling and solving of combinatorial optimization problems can be based on conjunctions of loosely coupled, recurring, combinatorial sub-problems (aka constraints). This rich representational approach means that, for better or for worse, pretty much anything can be expressed as a global constraint. Much of CP's success, however, has come from exploiting only one aspect of the rich constraint definition: global constraint propagation. In this talk, I will investigate how work in CP, SAT, AI planning, and mathematical programming can be understood as more seriously pursuing the implications of a rich constraint definition and how the interplay between local and global information can lead to dynamic problem reformulations and a flexible hybrid solver architecture.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on Abstraction, Reformulation and ApproximationSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207