论文标题

这是正确的吗?让我们检查一下!

Is this correct? Let's check!

论文作者

Ben-Eliezer, Omri, Mikulincer, Dan, Mossel, Elchanan, Sudan, Madhu

论文摘要

知识的社会积累是一个复杂的过程。新知识单位的正确性不仅取决于新推理的正确性,还取决于新单元的正确性。这种积累过程中的错误通常通过误差校正和检测启发式方法来纠正。 激励的例子包括基于科学出版物的科学过程以及基于代码库的软件开发。 旨在控制错误的自然过程,例如科学出版物中的同行评审,以及在软件开发中进行测试和调试,通常会检查现有知识 - 既是产生它们的推理及其依赖的事实的原因。在这项工作中,我们提出了一个简单的过程,该过程模拟了知识的积累并研究持久性(或缺乏错误)错误。 我们考虑了一个简单的概率模型,用于基于优先附件增长模型生成新知识单位,该模型还允许错误。此外,该过程包括旨在捕获这些错误的检查。我们调查系统的影响何时在系统中永远存在(具有正概率),以及何时完全由检查过程扎根。 与检查过程关联的两个基本参数是进行检查和检查深度的{\ em概率}。我们表明,如果检查足够频繁并且足够深,则将错误植根。相比之下,浅或不经常检查不足以解决错误。

Societal accumulation of knowledge is a complex process. The correctness of new units of knowledge depends not only on the correctness of new reasoning, but also on the correctness of old units that the new one builds on. The errors in such accumulation processes are often remedied by error correction and detection heuristics. Motivating examples include the scientific process based on scientific publications, and software development based on libraries of code. Natural processes that aim to keep errors under control, such as peer review in scientific publications, and testing and debugging in software development, would typically check existing pieces of knowledge -- both for the reasoning that generated them and the previous facts they rely on. In this work, we present a simple process that models such accumulation of knowledge and study the persistence (or lack thereof) of errors. We consider a simple probabilistic model for the generation of new units of knowledge based on the preferential attachment growth model, which additionally allows for errors. Furthermore, the process includes checks aimed at catching these errors. We investigate when effects of errors persist forever in the system (with positive probability) and when they get rooted out completely by the checking process. The two basic parameters associated with the checking process are the {\em probability} of conducting a check and the depth of the check. We show that errors are rooted out if checks are sufficiently frequent and sufficiently deep. In contrast, shallow or infrequent checks are insufficient to root out errors.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源