MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095120501

Changes’05 International Workshop on Constraint Solving under Change and Uncertainty

2005· article· en· W7095120501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Position (finance)Position paperTime constraintConstraint satisfaction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem solving under change and uncertainty is a significant issue for many practical applications. Solutions must be obtained before the full problem is known, and often must be executed as the environment changes. Many of the application areas have been tackled by constraint based methods, but current constraint solving tools offer little support for uncertain dynamic problems. Possible enhancements could include rapid reaction to problem changes, robust solutions, prediction of future changes and contingent solutions, time guarantees or exploitation of known time limits. This workshop will continue the series of CP workshops on online solving, change and uncertainty, and in particular following on from Changes'04 held at Toronto during CP2004. The workshop aims to bring together researchers interested in the general topic, to consider how existing techniques can be enhanced, and to explore combinations of different techniques. This year, submission was by position paper only – this was intended to encourage participation and discussion at the workshop. All position papers are included in these working notes. We are very pleased to have an invited talk by Rina Dechter, on current

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207