MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W83659058 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v25i1.7851

Causal Theories of Actions Revisited

2011· article· en· W83659058 on OpenAlexafffund
Fangzhen Lin, Mikhail Soutchanski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSuccessor cardinalAxiomCausal theory of referenceTheoryComputer scienceCausality (physics)Representation (politics)Action (physics)Causal structureSemantics (computer science)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceEpistemologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been argued that causal rules are necessary for representing both implicit side-effects of actions and action qualifications, and there have been a number different approaches for representing causal rules in the area of formal theoriesof actions. These different approaches in general agree on rules without cycles. However, they differ on causal rules with mutual cyclic dependencies, both in terms of how these rules are supposed to be represented and their semantics. In this paper we show that by adding one more minimization to Lin's circumscriptive causal theory in the situation calculus, we can have a uniform representation of causal rules including those with cyclic dependencies. We also demonstrate that sometimes causal rules can be compiled into logically equivalent successor state axioms even in the presence of cyclical dependencies between fluents.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207