Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Approximate Lifted Model Construction

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Near-equal potentials can be lifted with a provable bound on query changes

desk verdict Solid extension of ACP with a provably tight error bound; the theory holds up, and the only overclaim is 'minimal approximation error'. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20784 v3 pith:KF2QUQGU submitted 2025-04-29 cs.AI cs.DScs.LG

Malte Luttermann , Jan Speller , Marcel Gehrke , Tanya Braun , Ralf Möller , Mattis Hartwig This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.DScs.LG
keywords liftedinferenceparametricfactorgraphscolourpassingapproximatemodelconstructionepsilon-equivalenceapproximationerrorboundprobabilisticgraphicalmodelssymmetrydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces $\varepsilon$-Advanced Colour Passing ($\varepsilon$-ACP), an algorithm that constructs a lifted probabilistic factor graph from a ground factor graph even when factor potentials are not exactly equal, only close. It replaces exact equality by $\varepsilon$-equivalence, in which two potentials may differ by at most a factor of $1\pm\varepsilon$, and replaces each group of pairwise $\varepsilon$-equivalent factors with their row-wise arithmetic mean before running colour passing. The central claim is that this approximate lifting provably changes query answers only within a strict bound: for an input graph with $m$ factors, the distance $D$ between the original and lifted distributions is at most $\ln\!\left(\frac{(1+\frac{m-1}{m}\varepsilon)(1+\varepsilon)}{1+\frac{\varepsilon}{m}}\right)^{m}$, and Theorem 9 shows this bound is optimal. The paper also reports experiments in which the actual change in query results is close to zero while inference becomes up to a hundred times faster. If correct, this makes lifted inference usable on models whose potentials are learned from data rather than exactly specified.

What carries the argument

The central objects are $\varepsilon$-equivalent factors and the arithmetic-mean update that makes their potentials identical with minimal squared deviation. Two potentials are $\varepsilon$-equivalent when each lies in $[\varphi(1-\varepsilon),\varphi(1+\varepsilon)]$ and conversely; two factors are $\varepsilon$-equivalent when their tables match after a permutation of arguments. $\varepsilon$-ACP groups factors that are pairwise $\varepsilon$-equivalent, chooses for each group the arithmetic mean row by row (the optimum of the sum-of-squared-deviations objective), assigns one colour per group, and runs ACP's colour-passing refinement so that the final groups respect both potential proximity and graph symmetry. The error analysis uses the distance $D(P_M,P_{M'}) = \ln \max_r \frac{\psi'(r)}{\psi(r)} - \ln \min_r \frac{\psi'(r)}{\psi(r)}$, in which the normalisation constants cancel; the key property is that $D \le d$ implies $e^{-d} \le O_{M'}(r|e)/O_M(r|e) \le e^d$ for query odds.

What would settle it

Use the paper's Theorem 9 construction to verify that the bound is attained for a single group, then modify the graph so that the factors split into two groups whose extreme quotients are anti-correlated across assignments; enumerate all assignments to compute $D(P_M,P_{M'})$ exactly. If any such graph exceeds the Theorem 7 bound, the multi-group generalisation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the approximation error induced by $\varepsilon$-ACP is tightly controlled. For any factor graph $M$ with $m$ factors and its $\varepsilon$-ACP output $M'$, the full-joint distributions satisfy $D(P_M,P_{M'}) \le \ln\!\left(\frac{(1+\frac{m-1}{m}\varepsilon)(1+\varepsilon)}{1+\frac{\varepsilon}{m}}\right)^{m}$, where $D$ is the log-ratio distance used in Theorem 7, and the paper constructs a factor graph that reaches this boundary, so no tighter bound of this general form exists. Setting $\varepsilon=0$ reduces $\varepsilon$-ACP to the exact ACP algorithm. Because a bound on $D$ translates directly into a bound on the odds of any query answer, the theorem gives a worst-case guarantee for approximate query answering in terms of $\varepsilon$ and the number of factors. The experiments then show that the actual error is far below the guarantee, with most query-result quotients equal to 1 to three decimal places.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the worst-case bound proved for the deviations inside a single group of $\varepsilon$-equivalent factors remains valid when the algorithm produces several interacting groups; the proof of that step assumes the groups' extreme deviations align independently, an assumption that can fail for arbitrary factor graphs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For fixed $m$, reducing $\varepsilon$ tightens the worst-case query bound, and setting $\varepsilon=0$ recovers the exact ACP output.
  • The distance bound converts directly into a multiplicative worst-case guarantee on any query's posterior odds, so a user can state an error bar for the lifted model without extra computation.
  • Grouping is conservative on purpose: a factor joins a group only if it is $\varepsilon$-equivalent to every current member, which prevents cascading errors from the non-transitivity of $\varepsilon$-equivalence.
  • The experiments show a speedup of up to about a factor of 100 over ACP while keeping average query-result quotients within a few tenths of a percent of 1; on a learned MIMIC-IV graph the speedup is smaller but the error quotients are even closer to 1.
  • The proof notes that mild departures from the worst-case configuration shrink the bound substantially, so the theoretical guarantee is conservative for realistic inputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A practical extension would invert Theorem 7: given a target tolerance on query odds and the factor count $m$, compute the largest $\varepsilon$ that still satisfies the tolerance, and use that as the algorithm's hyperparameter.
  • The multi-group step in the appendix assumes that the extreme quotients of different groups align independently; a stress test would construct graphs where one group's maximum quotient coincides with another's minimum across assignments and check whether the Theorem 7 bound still holds.
  • The mean-replacement idea is not tied to colour passing; the same $\varepsilon$-grouping plus arithmetic-mean update could be applied to other lifted representations or to parameter tying in learned graphical models.
  • If the near-zero empirical error persists on more diverse real-world models, the broader conclusion would be that approximate symmetry detection is safe for moderate $\varepsilon$, making lifted inference the default rather than a special case for exactly symmetric models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ε-Advanced Colour Passing (ε-ACP), a modification of the ACP lifted-model-construction algorithm that allows potentials to deviate by a multiplicative factor (1±ε) while still being grouped. The algorithm has three phases: greedy grouping of pairwise ε-equivalent factors (Phase I), colour-based graph-structure refinement via ACP (Phase II), and replacement of each group's potentials by the row-wise arithmetic mean (Phase III). The central theoretical contribution is Theorem 7, which bounds the Chan–Darwiche distance D(P_M,P_M') by ln( ((1+(m−1)/m ε)(1+ε))/(1+ε/m) )^m, and Theorem 9, which gives a tightness construction. The paper also reports experiments on synthetic factor graphs and one MIMIC-IV-learned model showing speedups and query-result quotients near one.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a principled approximate lifted-model-construction method with a provable error bound, which is important for applying lifted inference to potentials learned from noisy data. The analysis is largely self-contained: Lemma 5 shows the mean update preserves ε-equivalence, Theorem 7 is proved with an explicit worst-case argument, and Theorem 9 supplies a matching lower-bound construction. The empirical evaluation is strengthened by released data-set generators and source code, as well as by the MIMIC-IV case study. The main caveats are that the Phase I grouping is a greedy heuristic and the practical near-zero-error claim rests on a limited set of benchmarks.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 3.1 (Eq. 3)] The phrase 'constructing an approximate lifted representation with a minimal approximation error' overstates the guarantee: Phase I of Algorithm 1 is a greedy, order-dependent grouping heuristic, and the optimality of Theorem 1 applies only to the choice of the representative potential for a fixed group, not to the partition of factors into groups. Please rephrase the contribution statement to say that the per-group update is locally minimal and state explicitly that the grouping in Phase I is heuristic (for example, after Line 11 of Algorithm 1).
  2. [Section 5 (Fig. 3 and Figs. 7–12)] The sentence claiming that even the outliers 'only deviate at the third decimal place' is contradicted by the plots for ε=0.1 and small domain sizes: for k=2 the quotient p′/p reaches values around 1.02 (second decimal). Please either restrict the statement to the typical or median cases or report the actual extrema.
  3. [Section 4 (Theorem 3 and Definition 3)] The analysis uses the expression (1−ε) and logarithms of it; please state explicitly that the results assume 0<ε<1, and clarify the intended behaviour of Definition 3 when ε≥1.
  4. [Section 3.1 (Eq. (3))] Please clarify whether the argmin in Eq. (3) ranges over all potential tables or only over the factors already in G; the surrounding text and Theorem 1 indicate the former, but the subscript ϕ_j invites the latter reading.
  5. [Appendix A (Eqs. (84)–(93))] The multi-group bound would benefit from a one-line justification of the inequality in Eq. (88), for example by noting that the function n ↦ ((1+(n−1)/n ε)(1+ε))/(1+ε/n) is increasing in n for n≥1.
  6. [Section 5, Table 2] The sentence 'The learned FG contains 344 randvars and factors, respectively' is ambiguous; please state explicitly that there are 344 randvars and 344 factors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ε-ACP error bound is derived analytically from the definition of ε-equivalence and the arithmetic-mean update, not fitted or imported from self-citations.

full rationale

The central claims are Theorem 7's strict bound on D(P_M,P_M') and Theorem 9's optimality. These are mathematical statements proved from explicit assumptions, not empirical predictions or fitted parameters. Theorem 1, that the arithmetic mean minimizes squared deviation, is proven in Appendix A by elementary algebra. Lemma 5, which shows that the row-wise arithmetic mean of a pairwise ε-equivalent group remains ε-equivalent, is also proven directly from Definition 3 using interval arithmetic; it is not assumed or cited. The proof of Theorem 7 then bounds the ratio ψ'(r)/ψ(r) row-wise and multiplies the per-factor bounds; the multi-group extension in Appendix A, Eqs. (84)-(93), is valid without an independence assumption because max of a product is bounded by the product of maxima and min of a product by the product of minima. Theorem 9 constructs an explicit FG in Table 3 and computes min and max ratios exactly, so optimality is demonstrated rather than imported. The practical 'close to zero' claim is an empirical observation; ε is a user-set hyperparameter and no parameter is fitted to make the quotients near one. Self-citations to Luttermann et al. for ACP describe background and PFG construction, but the error-bound derivation does not rest on an unverified cited uniqueness result or on any self-citation chain. The only caveat is a phrasing issue—the introduction says 'minimal approximation error' while Phase I of Algorithm 1 is a greedy grouping—but this is an optimality overclaim, not circularity, and it does not affect the theorem. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces only the hyperparameter ε and the ε-equivalence relation as new elements; no new physical or model entities are postulated. The main mathematical load is carried by standard results (mean-squared-error minimization, Chan-Darwiche distance) and by the authors' own proof of the error bound, which depends on a worst-case analysis and a specific grouping heuristic.

free parameters (1)
  • epsilon (ε) = not fitted; 0.001, 0.01, 0.1 in experiments
    User-chosen tolerance for relative potential deviation; the algorithm's bound and behavior depend on it, but it is not estimated from data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Factor potentials are positive real numbers and the joint distribution is the normalized product of potentials (Eq. 2).
    Standard definition of factor graphs (Sec. 2, Def. 1).
  • standard math The Chan-Darwiche distance D and the odds bound (Eq. 9) are valid measures for bounding changes in query results.
    Imported from Chan and Darwiche 2005; used in Sec. 4.
  • standard math The arithmetic mean minimizes the sum of squared deviations (Theorem 1).
    Well-known property, proved in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption After argument permutation, factors in a group have aligned rows so that row-wise arithmetic means are well-defined.
    Needed for the update rule Eq. (5) and the proof of Theorem 7; implied by Definition 3 but not explicitly stated as a separate assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The greedy grouping in Algorithm 1 is a reliable way to find groups of pairwise ε-equivalent factors.
    The algorithm is introduced by the authors; the grouping is order-dependent and not proven to be globally optimal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approximate Lifted Model Construction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KF2QUQGU

@misc{pith2026250420784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approximate Lifted Model Construction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KF2QUQGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20784}
}
abstract

Probabilistic relational models such as parametric factor graphs enable efficient (lifted) inference by exploiting the indistinguishability of objects. In lifted inference, a representative of indistinguishable objects is used for computations. To obtain a relational (i.e., lifted) representation, the Advanced Colour Passing (ACP) algorithm is the state of the art. The ACP algorithm, however, requires underlying distributions, encoded as potential-based factorisations, to exactly match to identify and exploit indistinguishabilities. Hence, ACP is unsuitable for practical applications where potentials learned from data inevitably deviate even if associated objects are indistinguishable. To mitigate this problem, we introduce the $\varepsilon$-Advanced Colour Passing ($\varepsilon$-ACP) algorithm, which allows for a deviation of potentials depending on a hyperparameter $\varepsilon$. $\varepsilon$-ACP efficiently uncovers and exploits indistinguishabilities that are not exact. We prove that the approximation error induced by $\varepsilon$-ACP is strictly bounded and our experiments show that the approximation error is close to zero in practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An FG modelling the interplay between the revenue of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of the bound given in Eq. (10) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average query times of lifted variable elimination on the output of ACP and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Observe that the function definition of ϕ1 is identical in M1 and M2 (i.e., its potential table is exactly the same). If we now take a look at ϕ2, we see that in M1, the order of its arguments differs from the order of its arguments in M2. In particular, Rev is now loc…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A visualisation of the steps undertaken by the ACP algorithm (Alg. 2) on the input FG from Fig. 1 (left). All randvars have the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Another FG modeling the interplay between the revenue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) An FG modelling the interplay between the revenue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Boxplots showing the distribution of the quotient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Boxplots showing the distribution of the quotient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Boxplots showing the distribution of the quotient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Boxplots showing the distribution of the quotient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Boxplots showing the distribution of the quotient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Boxplots showing the distribution of the quotient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Boxplots illustrating the distributions of the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Boxplots illustrating the distributions of the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Boxplots illustrating the distributions of the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Compression versus Accuracy: A Hierarchy of Lifted Models

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HACP computes a nested sequence of approximate lifted models for factor graphs with automatic epsilon values and hierarchical error bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Exploiting Symmetries for Scaling Loopy Belief Propagation and Relational Training

    Babak Ahmadi, Kristian Kersting, Martin Mladenov, and Sriraam Natarajan. Exploiting Symmetries for Scaling Loopy Belief Propagation and Relational Training . Machine Learning , 92:91--132, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Parameterised Queries and Lifted Query Answering

    Tanya Braun and Ralf Möller. Parameterised Queries and Lifted Query Answering . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2018) , pages 4980--4986. IJCAI Organization, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    A Distance Measure for Bounding Probabilistic Belief Change

    Hei Chan and Adnan Darwiche. A Distance Measure for Bounding Probabilistic Belief Change . International Journal of Approximate Reasoning , 38:149--174, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Lifted First-Order Probabilistic Inference

    Rodrigo De Salvo Braz , Eyal Amir, and Dan Roth. Lifted First-Order Probabilistic Inference . In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2005) , pages 1319--1325. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    MPE and Partial Inversion in Lifted Probabilistic Variable Elimination

    Rodrigo De Salvo Braz , Eyal Amir, and Dan Roth. MPE and Partial Inversion in Lifted Probabilistic Variable Elimination . In Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2006) , pages 1123--1130. AAAI Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Frey, Frank R

    Brendan J. Frey, Frank R. Kschischang, Hans-Andrea Loeliger, and Niclas Wiberg. Factor Graphs and Algorithms . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing , pages 666--680. Allerton House, 1997

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Alistair E. W. Johnson, Lucas Bulgarelli, Lu Shen, Alvin Gayles, Ayad Shammout, Steven Horng, Tom J. Pollard, Sicheng Hao, Benjamin Moody, Brian Gow, Li wei H. Lehman, Leo A. Celi, and Roger G. Mark. MIMIC-IV, A Freely Accessible Electronic Health Record Dataset . Scientific Data , 10:1, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Counting Belief Propagation

    Kristian Kersting, Babak Ahmadi, and Sriraam Natarajan. Counting Belief Propagation . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2009) , pages 277--284. AUAI Press, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Constraint Processing in Lifted Probabilistic Inference

    Jacek Kisy\' n ski and David Poole. Constraint Processing in Lifted Probabilistic Inference . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2009) , pages 293--302. AUAI Press, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Kschischang, Brendan J

    Frank R. Kschischang, Brendan J. Frey, and Hans-Andrea Loeliger. Factor Graphs and the Sum-Product Algorithm . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 47:498--519, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Colour Passing Revisited: Lifted Model Construction with Commutative Factors

    Malte Luttermann, Tanya Braun, Ralf M\"oller, and Marcel Gehrke. Colour Passing Revisited: Lifted Model Construction with Commutative Factors . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2024) , pages 20500--20507. AAAI Press, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Estimating Causal Effects in Partially Directed Parametric Causal Factor Graphs

    Malte Luttermann, Tanya Braun, Ralf Möller, and Marcel Gehrke. Estimating Causal Effects in Partially Directed Parametric Causal Factor Graphs . In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM-2024) , pages 265--280. Springer, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Lifted Causal Inference in Relational Domains

    Malte Luttermann, Mattis Hartwig, Tanya Braun, Ralf M\"oller, and Marcel Gehrke. Lifted Causal Inference in Relational Domains . In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning (CLeaR-2024) , pages 827--842. PMLR , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Efficient Detection of Commutative Factors in Factor Graphs

    Malte Luttermann, Johann Machemer, and Marcel Gehrke. Efficient Detection of Commutative Factors in Factor Graphs . In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models (PGM-2024) . PMLR , 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Efficient Detection of Exchangeable Factors in Factor Graphs

    Malte Luttermann, Johann Machemer, and Marcel Gehrke. Efficient Detection of Exchangeable Factors in Factor Graphs . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS-2024) . Florida Online Journals, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Lifted Model Construction without Normalisation: A Vectorised Approach to Exploit Symmetries in Factor Graphs

    Malte Luttermann, Ralf Möller, and Marcel Gehrke. Lifted Model Construction without Normalisation: A Vectorised Approach to Exploit Symmetries in Factor Graphs . In Proceedings of the Third Learning on Graphs Conference (LoG-2024) . PMLR , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Zettlemoyer, Kristian Kersting, Michael Haimes, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling

    Brian Milch, Luke S. Zettlemoyer, Kristian Kersting, Michael Haimes, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Lifted Probabilistic Inference with Counting Formulas . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2008) , pages 1062--1068. AAAI Press, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Tractability through Exchangeability: A New Perspective on Efficient Probabilistic Inference

    Mathias Niepert and Guy Van den Broeck . Tractability through Exchangeability: A New Perspective on Efficient Probabilistic Inference . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2014) , pages 2467--2475. AAAI Press, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    First-Order Probabilistic Inference

    David Poole. First-Order Probabilistic Inference . In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03) , pages 985--991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    Lifted Variable Elimination: Decoupling the Operators from the Constraint Language

    Nima Taghipour, Daan Fierens, Jesse Davis, and Hendrik Blockeel. Lifted Variable Elimination: Decoupling the Operators from the Constraint Language . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 47:393--439, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Boris Weisfeiler and Andrei A. Leman. The Reduction of a Graph to Canonical Form and the Algebra which Appears Therein . NTI , Series , 2:12--16, 1968. English translation by Grigory Ryabov available at https://www.iti.zcu.cz/wl2018/pdf/wl_paper_translation.pdf

    1968

  14. [22]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.