MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041597941 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/690

Pure-Past Linear Temporal and Dynamic Logic on Finite Traces

2020· article· en· W3041597941 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe De Giacomo, Antonio Di Stasio, Francesco Fuggitti, Sasha Rubin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsTRACE (psycholinguistics)Exponential functionComputer scienceExploitExpressive powerLinear temporal logicTemporal logicTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMarkov decision processDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldMathematicsMarkov processPure mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review PLTLf and PLDLf, the pure-past versions of the well-known logics on finite traces LTLf and LDLf, respectively. PLTLf and PLDLf are logics about the past, and so scan the trace backwards from the end towards the beginning. Because of this, we can exploit a foundational result on reverse languages to get an exponential improvement, over LTLf /LDLf , for computing the corresponding DFA. This exponential improvement is reflected in several forms of sequential decision making involving temporal specifications, such as planning and decision problems in non-deterministic and non-Markovian domains. Interestingly, PLTLf (resp., PLDLf ) has the same expressive power as LTLf (resp., LDLf ), but transforming a PLTLf (resp., PLDLf ) formula into its equivalent LTLf (resp.,LDLf) is quite expensive. Hence, to take advantage of the exponential improvement, properties of interest must be directly expressed in PLTLf /PLDLf .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207