Bibliographic record
Abstract
Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a logic programming, declarative, paradigm that was introduced in the late 1990s, based on the answer set semantics of logic programs proposed by Gelfond and Lifschitz a decade earlier. To date, ASP has been applied to a variety of domains and demonstrated its suitability for solving reasoning tasks such as knowledge-intensive tasks and combinatorial search problems. One direction of ASP research focuses on the development of efficient methods for computing answer sets. Novel techniques were initially adapted from SAT, then designed on purpose for ASP, e.g. to deal with specific ASP constructs, like aggregates, or to solve different reasoning tasks, such as cautious reasoning. More recently, ideas have been derived from the study of the relationship between ASP and other computing paradigms, such as constraint satisfaction, quantified Boolean formulas, first-order logic, pseudo-Boolean solvers, theorem provers, description logics, and external means of computation. The goal of this direction is to be able to cope more efficiently with practical problems, and to extend the domains that can be modeled and solved via ASP and its extensions. A recent, successful direction is CASP, which integrates ASP and constraint programming to solve problems with mixed discrete-continuous dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.025 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".