'. . . and nothing else changes': the frame problem in procedure specifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first aim of this analysis is to outline a certain general problem which arises in all formal specifications using the pre/postcondition notation, and which is related to a longstanding problem in the field of AI, called the frame problem (J. McCarthy and P. Hayes, 1969). The authors then present examples illustrating this problem, which becomes particularly acute for large object-oriented specifications where inheritance plays a central role. The examples are intended to demonstrate that failure to deal with the frame problem compromises a formal specification language with respect to its notational suitability and its capacity to support a methodology for formally proving properties of specifications. How existing specification languages have endeavored to cope with the problem are reviewed. A novel approach is presented based on recent work intended to solve the frame problem in planning applications within AI.>
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".