MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127816126 · doi:10.1145/2907052

Better Balance by Being Biased

2016· article· en· W2127816126 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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApproximation algorithmConjectureCombinatoricsMathematicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Discrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Raghavendra and Tan (SODA 2012) gave a 0.85-approximation algorithm for the M ax B isection problem. We improve their algorithm to a 0.8776-approximation. As M ax B isection is hard to approximate within α GW + ε ≈ 0.8786 under the Unique Games Conjecture (UGC), our algorithm is nearly optimal. We conjecture that M ax B isection is approximable within α GW − ε, that is, that the bisection constraint (essentially) does not make M ax C ut harder. We also obtain an optimal algorithm (assuming the UGC) for the analogous variant of M ax 2-S at . Our approximation ratio for this problem exactly matches the optimal approximation ratio for M ax 2-S at , that is, α LLZ + ε ≈ 0.9401, showing that the bisection constraint does not make M ax 2-S at harder. This improves on a 0.93-approximation for this problem from Raghavendra and Tan.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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