MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400452393

Kernel contraction and base dependence: redundancy in the base resulting in different types of dependence

2015· article· en· W2400452393 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrdad Oveisi, James P. Delgrande, Fred Popowich, Francis Jeffry Pelletier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelief revisionContraction (grammar)Knowledge baseRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceMathematicsBase (topology)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AGM paradigm of belief change studies the dy-namics of belief states in light of new information. Finding, or even approximating, dependent or rel-evant beliefs to a change is valuable because, for example, it can narrow the set of beliefs consid-ered during belief change operations. Gärdenfors’ preservation criterion (GPC) suggests that formu-las independent of a belief change should remain intact. GPC allows to build dependence relations that are theoretically linked with belief change. Such dependence relations can in turn be used as a theoretical benchmark against which to evaluate other approximate dependence or relevance rela-tions. There are already some studies, based on GPC, on the parallelism between belief change and dependence. One study offers a dependence re-lation parallel to AGM contraction for belief sets. Another study links base dependence relation to a more general belief base contraction, saturated ker-nel contraction. Here we offer yet a more general parallelism between kernel contraction and base dependence. At this level of generalization, differ-ent types of base dependence emerge. We prove that this differentiation of base dependence types is a result of possible redundancy in the base. This provides a theoretical means to distinguish between redundant and informative parts of a belief base. 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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