MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604294253 · doi:10.1109/tac.2017.2692561

Reduction of Distributions: Definitions, Properties, and Applications

2017· article· en· W2604294253 on OpenAlexafffund
Liyong Lin, Simon Ware, Rong Su, W.M. Wonham

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)SupervisorMathematical proofComputer scienceDecompositionTheoretical computer scienceSubstitution (logic)AlgorithmComputational complexity theoryMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a notion of reduction of distributions is proposed as a technical tool for improving the complexity of decomposability verification and supporting parallel verification of decomposability, by exploiting the rich structures of distributions. We provide some results that reduce the search space of candidate reductions, as a first step toward efficiently computing optimal reductions. It is then shown that a distribution has a reduction if and only if a particular candidate reduction is indeed a reduction. We then provide a sound substitution-based proof technique that can be used for (automatic) reduction verification. Techniques for refuting candidate reductions are also provided. We then explain an application of the decomposability verification problem in the lower bound proofs for the problem of supervisor decomposition and the problem of existence of a decentralized supervisor. Finally, some other applications of the notion of reduction of distributions are also shown.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207