MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042122359 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/749

GenC: A Fast Tool for Applications Involving Belief Revision

2020· article· en· W3042122359 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Hunter, John Agapeyev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolverClass (philosophy)Belief revisionComputer scienceProblem solverHamming distanceSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceVariety (cybernetics)Theoretical computer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)AlgorithmProgramming languageSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of belief revision occurs in many applications where agents may have incorrect or incomplete information. One important theoretical model of belief revision is the well-known AGM approach. Unfortunately, there are few tools available for solving AGM revision problems quickly; this has limited the use of AGM operators for practical applications. In this demonstration paper, we describe GenC, a tool that is able to quickly calculate the result of AGM belief revision for formulas with hundreds of variables and millions of clauses. GenC uses an AllSAT solver and parallel processing to solve revision problems at a rate much faster than existing systems. The solver works for the class of parametrised difference operators, which is an extensive class of revision operators that use a weighted Hamming distance to measure the similarity between states. We demonstrate how GenC can be used as a stand-alone tool or as a component of a reasoning system for a variety of applications.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207