MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097876432

Constraint Reasoning DCR’2004- In conjunction with the Tenth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’2004), Toronto, Canada Dynamic Distributed BackJumping

2010· article· en· W7097876432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint programmingConstraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfactionConstraint logic programmingConstraint satisfaction problemSet (abstract data type)Conjunction (astronomy)Distributed algorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We consider Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems (DisCSP) when control of variables and constraints is distributed among a set of agents. This paper presents a distributed version of the centralized BackJumping algorithm, called the Dynamic Distributed BackJumping- DDBJ algorithm. The advantage is twofold: DDBJ inherits the strength of synchronous algorithms that enables it to easily combine with a powerful dynamic ordering of variables and values, and still it maintains some level of autonomy for the agents. Experimental results show that DDBJ outperforms the DiDB and AFC algorithms by a factor of one to two orders of magnitude on hard instances of randomly generated DisCSPs. Keywords: Search, Constraint Satisfaction, Distributed Systems, Multi-Agent Systems.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207