MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W856071238

Nogood processing in csps

2008· dissertation· en· W856071238 on OpenAlexaff
George Katsirelos

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint satisfaction problemComputer scienceSpeedupSolverDomain (mathematical analysis)SatisfiabilityBoolean satisfiability problemConstraint (computer-aided design)Theoretical computer scienceConstraint satisfactionMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceParallel computingMathematicsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constraint satisfaction problem is an NP-complete problem that provides a convenient framework for expressing many computationally hard problems. In addition, domain knowledge can be efficiently integrated into CSPs, providing a potentially exponential speedup in some cases. \n \nThe CSP is closely related to the satisfiability problem and many of the techniques developed for one have been transferred to the other. However, the recent dramatic improvements in SAT solvers that result from learning clauses during search have not been transferred successfully to CSP solvers. In this thesis we propose that this failure is due to a fundamental restriction of \\newtext{nogood \nlearning, which is intended to be the analogous to clause learning in CSPs}. This restriction means that nogood learning can exhibit a superpolynomial slowdown compared to clause learning in some cases. We show that the restriction can be lifted, delivering promising results. \n \nIntegration of nogood learning in a CSP solver, however, presents an additional challenge, as a large body of domain knowledge is typically encoded in the form of domain specific propagation algorithms called global constraints. Global constraints often completely eliminate the advantages of nogood learning. We demonstrate generic methods that partially alleviate the problem irrespective of the type of global constraint. We also show that \nmore efficient methods can be integrated into specific global constraints and demonstrate the feasibility of this approach on several widely used global constraints.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207