Negation without negation in probabilistic logic programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probabilistic logic programs without negation can have cycles (with a preference for false), but cannot represent all conditional distributions. Probabilistic logic programs with negation can represent arbitrary conditional probabilities, but with cycles they create logical inconsistencies. We show how allowing negative noise probabilities allows us to represent arbitrary conditional probabilities without negations. Noise probabilities for non-exclusive rules are difficult to interpret and unintuitive to manipulate; to alleviate this we define probability-strengths which provide an intuitive additive algebra for combining rules. For acyclic programs we prove what constraints on the strengths allow for proper distributions on the non-noise variables and allow for all non-extreme distributions to be represented. We show how arbitrary CPDs can be converted into this form in a canonical way. Furthermore, if a joint distribution can be compactly represented by a cyclic program with negations, we show how it can also be compactly represented with negative noise probabilities and no negations. This allows algorithms for exact inference that do not support negations to be applicable to probabilistic logic programs with negations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".