MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033561606 · doi:10.1145/2601071

Faster Algorithms for Semi-Matching Problems

2014· article· en· W2033561606 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

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmCombinatoricsBipartite graphBinary logarithmMatching (statistics)MathematicsSimple (philosophy)Running timeTime complexityScheduling (production processes)Upper and lower boundsComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsGraphMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of finding semi-matching in bipartite graphs, which is also extensively studied under various names in the scheduling literature. We give faster algorithms for both weighted and unweighted cases. For the weighted case, we give an O ( nm log n )-time algorithm, where n is the number of vertices and m is the number of edges, by exploiting the geometric structure of the problem. This improves the classical O ( n 3 )-time algorithms by Horn [1973] and Bruno et al. [1974b]. For the unweighted case, the bound can be improved even further. We give a simple divide-and-conquer algorithm that runs in O (√ nm log n ) time, improving two previous O ( nm )-time algorithms by Abraham [2003] and Harvey et al. [2003, 2006]. We also extend this algorithm to solve the Balanced Edge Cover problem in O (√ nm log n ) time, improving the previous O ( nm )-time algorithm by Harada et al. [2008].

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.249 · 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