MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951775186 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.cs/0302038

Tight Logic Programs

2003· preprint· en· W2951775186 on OpenAlexaff
Esra Erdem, Vladimir Lifschitz

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2003
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransitive closureNegation as failureNegationLogic programTransitive relationClosure (psychology)Predicate (mathematical logic)Computer sciencePredicate logicMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsProgramming languageCalculus (dental)Stable model semanticsLogic programmingDescription logicCombinatoricsMultimodal logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This note is about the relationship between two theories of negation as failure -- one based on program completion, the other based on stable models, or answer sets. Francois Fages showed that if a logic program satisfies a certain syntactic condition, which is now called ``tightness,'' then its stable models can be characterized as the models of its completion. We extend the definition of tightness and Fages' theorem to programs with nested expressions in the bodies of rules, and study tight logic programs containing the definition of the transitive closure of a predicate.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207