MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2703543743

Towards Tractable Inference for Resource-Bounded Agents

2015· article· en· W2703543743 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInferencesortCommonsense reasoningEpistemic modal logicCommonsense knowledgeSemantics (computer science)Non-monotonic logicArtificial intelligenceCommon senseRule of inferenceEpistemologyTheoretical computer scienceDescription logicCognitive scienceKnowledge representation and reasoningProgramming languageMultimodal logicPsychologyPhilosophyInformation retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a machine to act with common sense, it is not enough that information about commonsense things be written down in a formal language. What actual knowledge — i.e. conclusions available for informing actions — a formalization is meant to provide cannot be determined without some specification of what sort of reasoning is expected. The traditional view in epistemic logic says that agents see all logical consequences of the information they have, but that would give agents capabilities far beyond common sense or what is physically realizable. To work towards addressing this issue, we introduce a new epistemic logic, based on a three-valued version of neighborhood semantics, which allows for talking about the effort used in making inferences. We discuss the advantages and limitations of this approach and suggest that the ideas used in it could also find a role in autoepistemic reasoning.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.109 · 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