MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Partial Evaluation and Residual Theorems in Computer Algebra

2006· article· en· W23709082 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Kucera, Jacques Carette

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleSymbolic computationPartial evaluationResidualGuard (computer science)Algebra over a fieldComputer scienceMathematicsCode (set theory)Programming languageAlgorithmPure mathematicsSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have implemented a partial evaluator for Maple. One of the applications of this partial evaluator is to find, in Maple, what is the difference between generic or symbolic evaluation, and complete evaluation. More precisely, when asked degree(a*xˆ2+3,x), Maple replies 2, which is generically true. However, we are interested in the residual formula ¬(a = 0) which, as a guard, makes the answer 2 correct. While special algorithms have been derived in the past for this particular situation, we show how we can derive many of these algorithms as special cases of partially evaluating Maple code. Key words: Maple, symbolic computation, partial evaluation, specialization problem 1

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)0.001
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 score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
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 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207