MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W48296306

A logic of limited belief for reasoning with disjunctive information

2004· article· en· W48296306 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecidabilityComputer scienceBelief revisionDeductive reasoningPropositional calculusNon-monotonic logicCircumscriptionArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer sciencePropositional variablePoint (geometry)Description logicMathematicsIntermediate logicProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of producing a general purpose, semantically moti-vated, and computationally tractable deductive reasoning ser-vice remains surprisingly elusive. By and large, approaches that come equipped with a perspicuous model theory either result in reasoners that are too limited from a practical point of view or fall off the computational cliff. In this paper, we propose a new logic of belief called SL which lies between the two extremes. We show that query evaluation based on SL for a certain form of knowledge bases with disjunctive information is tractable in the propositional case and decidable in the first-order case. Also, we present a sound and complete axiomatization for propositional SL.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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