MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118182253 · doi:10.1613/jair.1081

An Analysis of Phase Transition in NK Landscapes

2002· article· en· W2118182253 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

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinityPhase transitionMathematicsUpper and lower boundsPolynomialPerspective (graphical)Phase (matter)Discrete mathematicsApplied mathematicsStatistical physicsMathematical analysisPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we analyze the decision version of the NK landscape model from the perspective of threshold phenomena and phase transitions under two random distributions, the uniform probability model and the fixed ratio model. For the uniform probability model, we prove that the phase transition is easy in the sense that there is a polynomial algorithm that can solve a random instance of the problem with the probability asymptotic to 1 as the problem size tends to infinity. For the fixed ratio model, we establish several upper bounds for the solubility threshold, and prove that random instances with parameters above these upper bounds can be solved polynomially. This, together with our empirical study for random instances generated below and in the phase transition region, suggests that the phase transition of the fixed ratio model is also easy.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.258 · 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