MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124284345 · doi:10.65109/lzuo9750

Quantitative Group Trust: A Two-Stage Verification Approach

2022· article· W7124284345 on OpenAlexaff
Nagat Drawel, Abdeladim Sadiki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel checkingCompleteness (order theory)Temporal logicFormal verificationComputation tree logicTransformation (genetics)Linear temporal logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is about modeling and verifying quantitative group trust. We present a formal analysis of this concept that allows us to express and reason about trust in multi-agent systems in a quantitative setting. We introduce GTL, the graded branching temporal logic that includes operators for quantitative aspects of trust within a group. A two-stage verification procedure of the logic is presented. The first stage is a transformation procedure, and the second stage is an indirect procedure that uses an existing model checking algorithm. Theoretical results about the soundness, completeness and complexity of the procedure are presented

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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