A Computationally Grounded Framework for Cognitive Attitudes

Authors: Tiago de Lima, Emiliano Lorini, Elise Perrotin, François Schwarzentruber

AAAI 2025 | Venue PDF | Archive PDF | Plain Text | LLM Run Details

Reproducibility Variable Result LLM Response
Research Type Experimental We present some experimental results for the implemented algorithm on computation time in a concrete example. ... Table 3: Model checker performance on Example 1. The execution times correspond to the elapsed time to model check Equation (8).
Researcher Affiliation Academia 1CRIL, Univ Artois and CNRS, Lens, France 2IRIT, CNRS, Toulouse University, France 3National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan 4ENS Lyon, LIP, France
Pseudocode Yes Definition 11. For all state symbols s, s , we define a function trs that maps any formula of L to a QBF-formula, and a function trprog s,s that maps any program π to a a QBF-formula by mutual induction as follows: ... and trprog s,s is given by ...
Open Source Code Yes Code https://gitlab.in2p3.fr/tiago.delima/cognitiveattitudes-source-code
Open Datasets No The paper uses a conceptual 'Example 1' to demonstrate and test the performance of its implemented model checker. This example defines a problem instance rather than utilizing an existing, publicly available dataset.
Dataset Splits No The paper evaluates a model checking algorithm using a conceptual example (Example 1) with varying parameters (e.g., number of agents). It does not involve typical machine learning datasets with explicit training, validation, or test splits.
Hardware Specification Yes It was compiled with GHC 9.4.8 in a Mac Book Air with a 1.6 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5 processor and 16,537 GB of RAM, running mac OS Sonoma 14.4.1.
Software Dependencies Yes we implemented a symbolic model checker for the static part of the language in Haskell ... which uses the reduction to TQBF. The resulting QBF-formula is solved using the binary decision diagram (BDD) library Has Cac BDD (Gattinger 2023). It was compiled with GHC 9.4.8
Experiment Setup No The paper describes the setup for evaluating the performance of a model checker by varying the number of agents and atomic propositions in a concrete example (Example 1), as shown in Table 3. However, it does not provide specific hyperparameters or system-level training settings as typically found in machine learning experimental setups.