MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015644646

Theorem Proving In Higher Order Logics

2002· article· en· W7015644646 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHOLAutomated theorem provingCorrectnessProof assistantUnificationAbstract syntaxAlgebra over a fieldSemantics (computer science)Syntax
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Syntax in Nuprl ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 23 Eli Barzilay, Stuart Allen DOVE: a Graphical Tool for the Analysis and Evaluation of Critical Systems :::::::::::::::::::::: 33 Tony Cant, Jim McCarthy, Brendan Mahony Formalising General Correctness ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 36 Jeremy E. Dawson Automatic Constraint Calculation using Lax Logic ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 48 Jeremy E. Dawson, Matt Fairtlough Automating Fraenkel-Mostowski Syntax :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 60 Murdoch J. Gabbay AFormal Correctness Proof of the SPIDER Diagnosis Protocol :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 71 Alfons Geser, Paul S. Miner Using HOL to Study Sugar 2.0 Semantics ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 87 Michael J. C. Gordon Extending DOVE with Product Automata :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 101 Elsa L. Gunter, Yi Meng A Higher-Order System for Representing Metabolic Pathways ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 112 Sara Kalvala Higher-Order Pattern Unification and Proof Irrelevance ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 121 Jason Reed AVerification of Rijndael in HOL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 128 Konrad Slind The K Combinator as a Semantically TransparentTagging Mechanism:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 139 Konrad Slind, Michael Norrish FCM 2002 Invited Talk Real Numbers in Real Applications ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 146 John Harrison v vi FCM 2002 Workshop Papers A PVS Service for MathWeb :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 147 A. A. Adams, A. Franke, J. Zimmer Formalizing Real Calculus in Coq :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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