MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030063053 · doi:10.1142/s0129054102001497

CONSTRUCTING RED-BLACK TREE SHAPES

2002· article· en· W2030063053 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)CorrectnessBinary treeMathematicsCombinatoricsSequence (biology)Optimal binary search treeRandom binary treeK-ary treeRange treeAlgorithmTernary search treeWeight-balanced treeInterval treeDiscrete mathematicsBinary search treeTree structureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cormen et al. describe efficient algorithms for inserting nodes into and deleting nodes from red-black trees. If some binary trees satisfying the definition of red-black trees cannot be built by these algorithms, then theoretical analyses of red-black trees that consider all binary trees satisfying the definition of red-black trees may not accurately describe the behavior of red-black trees in practice. We show that any binary tree shape that satisfies the definition of red-black trees can be built using only the insertion algorithm, RB-INSERT, of Cormen et al. We first describe an algorithm, RB-SHAPE, which, given any red-black tree T, will construct an insertion sequence for T. When the constructed sequence of insertions is performed on the empty tree using RB-INSERT, the result is a red-black tree with the same shape as T. We then prove the correctness of algorithm RB-SHAPE.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.265 · 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