MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736770525

Merging the Local and Global Approaches to Probabilistic Satisfiability

2004· article· en· W2736770525 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

VenueLes Cahiers du GERAD · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicSatisfiabilityConsistency (knowledge bases)MathematicsLogical consequenceSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The probabilistic satisfiability problem is to verify the consistency of a set of probability values or intervals for logical propositions. The (tight) probabilistic entailment problem is to find best bounds on the probability of an additional proposition. The local approach to these problems applies rules on small sets of logical sentences and probabilities to tighten given probability intervals. The global approach uses linear programming to find best bounds. We show that merging these approaches is profitable to both: local solutions can be used to find global solutions more quickly through stabilized column generation, and global solutions can be used to confirm or refute the optimality of the local solutions found. As a result, best bounds are found, together with their step-by-step justification.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.182 · 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