MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950537761 · doi:10.4204/eptcs.280.11

Smtlink 2.0

2018· article· en· W2950537761 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatisfiability modulo theoriesSoundnessPython (programming language)SatisfiabilityExtension (predicate logic)ModuloTranslation (biology)ExtensibilitySolver

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smtlink is an extension of ACL2 with Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers. We presented an earlier version at ACL2'2015. Smtlink 2.0 makes major improvements over the initial version with respect to soundness, extensibility, ease-of-use, and the range of types and associated theory-solvers supported. Most theorems that one would want to prove using an SMT solver must first be translated to use only the primitive operations supported by the SMT solver -- this translation includes function expansion and type inference. Smtlink 2.0 performs this translation using a sequence of steps performed by verified clause processors and computed hints. These steps are ensured to be sound. The final transliteration from ACL2 to Z3's Python interface requires a trusted clause processor. This is a great improvement in soundness and extensibility over the original Smtlink which was implemented as a single, monolithic, trusted clause processor. Smtlink 2.0 provides support for FTY defprod, deflist, defalist, and defoption types by using Z3's arrays and user-defined data types. We have identified common usage patterns and simplified the configuration and hint information needed to use Smtlink.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1230.068

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207