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 OpenAlexaff
Yong Gao, Joseph Culberson

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207