MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W44477046 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8213

A Well-Founded Semantics for Basic Logic Programs with Arbitrary Abstract Constraint Atoms

2021· article· en· W44477046 on OpenAlexaff
Yisong Wang, Fangzhen Lin, Mingyi Zhang, Jia-Huai You

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersState Key Laboratory of Computer ScienceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProgramming languageAxiomatic semanticsHigher-order logicComputer scienceStable model semanticsTheoretical computer scienceWell-founded semanticsConstraint (computer-aided design)Set (abstract data type)Logic programmingMultimodal logicIntermediate logicLogic programSemantics (computer science)Description logicMathematicsOperational semanticsDenotational semantics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Logic programs with abstract constraint atoms proposed by Marek and Truszczynski are very general logic programs.They are general enough to captureaggregate logic programs as well asrecently proposed description logic programs.In this paper, we propose a well-founded semantics for basic logic programs with arbitrary abstract constraint atoms, which are sets of rules whose heads have exactly one atom. Weshow that similar to the well-founded semanticsof normal logic programs, it has many desirable properties such as that it can becomputed in polynomial time, and is always correct with respect to theanswer set semantics. This paves the way for using our well-founded semanticsto simplify these logic programs. We also show how our semantics can be applied toaggregate logic programs and description logic programs, and compare itto the well-founded semantics already proposed for these logic programs.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207