MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296740036 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14637291.v2

A Logic of Actions Revisited

2022· preprint· en· W4296740036 on OpenAlexaff
Yilan Gu, Mikhail Soutchanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnificationOperator (biology)Predicate (mathematical logic)Predicate logicCircumscriptionMathematicsComputer scienceProjection (relational algebra)Theoretical computer scienceLogical connectiveArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsDescription logicProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p> </p> <p>We propose a theory for reasoning about actions based on order-sorted predicate logic where one can consider an elaborate taxonomy of objects. We are interested in the projection problem: whether a statement is true after executing a sequence of actions. To solve it we design a regression operator that takes advantage of well-sorted unification between terms. We show that answering projection queries in our logical theories is sound and complete with respect to that of in Reiter’s basic action theories. Moreover, we demonstrate that our regression operator based on order-sorted logic can provide significant computational advantages in comparison to Reiter’s regression operator.</p>

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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