Efficient Representations for the Modal Logic S5

Authors: Alexandre Niveau, Bruno Zanuttini

IJCAI 2016 | Conference PDF | Archive PDF | Plain Text | LLM Run Details

Reproducibility Variable Result LLM Response
Research Type Experimental We compare all three languages from the complexity-theoretic viewpoint of knowledge compilation and also through experiments. Our work sheds light on the pros and cons of each representation in both theory and practice.
Researcher Affiliation Academia Alexandre Niveau and Bruno Zanuttini GREYC, UMR 6072, UNICAEN/CNRS/ENSICAEN, France {alexandre.niveau,bruno.zanuttini@unicaen.fr}
Pseudocode No The paper does not contain structured pseudocode or algorithm blocks.
Open Source Code No The paper does not provide concrete access to source code for the methodology described.
Open Datasets No The paper describes using 'randomly drawn scenarios inspired from planning' and 'random (uniform, satisfiable) term of a given size t' for experiments. This indicates synthetic data generation rather than using a publicly available or open dataset with access information.
Dataset Splits No The paper describes running experiments with synthetic data, but it does not specify explicit training/validation/test dataset splits.
Hardware Specification No The paper does not provide specific hardware details used for running its experiments.
Software Dependencies No The paper does not provide specific ancillary software details with version numbers.
Experiment Setup Yes We ran experiments with a moderate and a larger number of variables (n = 15 and n = 30; recall that there are 22n structures over n atoms!) with term sizes t = 1,3,7, and numbers of actions m = 1,...,18. For each tuple (n,t,m), we averaged the results over 100 runs.