MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W972909139 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v27i1.8612

Progression of Decomposed Situation Calculus Theories

2013· article· en· W972909139 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis Ponomaryov, Mikhail Soutchanski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersRussian Academy of SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsForgettingDecompositionSituation calculusComputer scienceScope (computer science)Subject (documents)TheorySignature (topology)Action (physics)Calculus (dental)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCognitive psychologyProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many tasks related to reasoning about consequences of a logical theory, it is desirable to decompose the theory into a number of components with weakly-related or independent signatures. This facilitates reasoning when signature of a query formula belongs to only one of the components. However, an initial theory may be subject to change due to execution of actions affecting features mentioned in the theory. Having once computed a decomposition of a theory, one would like to know whether a decomposition has to be computed again for the theory obtained from taking into account the changes resulting from execution of an action. In the paper, we address this problem in the scope of the situation calculus, where change of an initial theory is related to the well-studied notion of progression. Progression provides a form of forward reasoning; it relies on forgetting values of those features which are subject to change and computing new values for them. We prove new results about properties of decomposition components under forgetting and show when a decomposition can be preserved in progression of an initial theory.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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