MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785025127 · doi:10.23638/lmcs-16(4:14)2020

Theory of higher order interpretations and application to Basic Feasible Functions

2020· preprint· en· W2785025127 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

VenueLogical Methods in Computer Science · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsAbstract interpretationInterpretation (philosophy)Bounding overwatchComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Domain theoryDomain (mathematical analysis)MathematicsFunctional programmingAlgebra over a fieldAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpretation methods and their restrictions to polynomials have been deeply used to control the termination and complexity of first-order term rewrite systems. This paper extends interpretation methods to a pure higher order functional language. We develop a theory of higher order functions that is well-suited for the complexity analysis of this programming language. The interpretation domain is a complete lattice and, consequently, we express program interpretation in terms of a least fixpoint. As an application, by bounding interpretations by higher order polynomials, we characterize Basic Feasible Functions at any order.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.301 · 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