Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In many tasks related to reasoning about consequences of a logical theory, it is desirable to decompose the theory into a number of weakly related or independent components. However, a theory may represent knowledge that is subject to change, as a result of executing actions that have effects on some of the initial properties mentioned in the theory. Having once computed a decomposition of a theory, it is advantageous to know whether a decomposition has to be computed again in the newly changed theory (obtained from taking into account changes resulting from execution of an action). In this article, we address this problem in the scope of the situation calculus, where a change of an initial theory is related to the notion of progression. Progression provides a form of forward reasoning; it relies on forgetting values of those properties, which are subject to change, and computing new values for them. We consider decomposability and inseparability, two component properties known from the literature, and contribute by studying the conditions (1) when these properties are preserved and (2) when they are lost wrt progression and the related operation of forgetting. To show the latter, we demonstrate the boundaries using a number of negative examples. To show the former, we identify cases when these properties are preserved under forgetting and progression of initial theories in local-effect basic action theories of the situation calculus. Our article contributes to bridging two different communities in knowledge representation, namely, research on modularity and research on reasoning about actions. </p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".