Exact Learning of Qualitative Constraint Networks from Membership Queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Qualitative Constraint Network (QCN) is a constraint graph representing problems under qualitative temporal or spatial relations. More formally, a QCN includes a set of entities and a list of qualitative constraints defining the possible scenarios between these entities. Qualitative constraints are expressed as disjunctions of binary relations capturing the (incomplete) knowledge between the involved entities. QCNs effectively represent various real-world applications, including scheduling and planning, configuration, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). It is, however, challenging to elicit, from the user, the QCN representing a given problem. To overcome this difficulty in practice, we propose a new algorithm for learning, through membership queries, a QCN from a non-expert. Membership queries are asked to elicit temporal or spatial relationships between pairs of temporal or spatial entities. To improve the time performance of our learning algorithm, constraint propagation and ordering heuristics are enforced. The goal is to reduce the number of membership queries needed to reach the target QCN. We conducted several experiments on randomly generated temporal and spatial QCN instances to assess the practical effect of constraint propagation and ordering heuristics. The results of the experiments are encouraging and promising.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".