MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048819748 · doi:10.1142/s0129054102000947

VECTOR ALGORITHMS FOR APPROXIMATE STRING MATCHING

2002· article· en· W2048819748 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
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmBit arrayString (physics)String searching algorithmMatching (statistics)AutomatonComputationBounded functionComputer scienceFocus (optics)MathematicsPattern matchingTheoretical computer scienceType (biology)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vector algorithms allow the computation of an output vector r = r 1 r 2 ⋯ r m given an input vector e = e 1 e 2 ⋯ e m in a bounded number of operations, independent of m the length of the vectors. The allowable operations are usually restricted to bit-wise operations available in processors, including shifts and binary addition with carry. These restrictions imple that the existence of a vector algorithm for a particular problem opens the way to extremely fast implementations, using the inherent parallelism of bit-wise operations. This paper presents general results on the existence and construction of vertor algorithms, with a particular focus on problems arising from computational biology. We show that efficient vector algorithms exist for the problem of approximate string matching with arbitrary weighted distances, generalizing a previous result by G. Myers. We also characterize a class of automata for which vector algorithms can be automatically derived from the transition table of the automata.

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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.274 · 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