MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150231253

Min-Max Problems on Factor Graphs

2014· article· en· W2150231253 on OpenAlexaff
Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Christopher Srinivasa, Brendan J. Frey, Russell Greiner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisCombinatoricsTravelling salesman problemSet cover problemMathematicsIndependent setMathematical optimizationHamiltonian pathBottleneckComputer scienceGraphSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the min-max problem in factor graphs, which seeks the assignment that minimizes the maximum value over all factors. We reduce this problem to both min-sum and sum-product infer-ence, and focus on the later. In this approach the min-max inference problem is reduced to a sequence of Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP), which allows us to solve the problem by sampling from a uniform distribution over the set of solutions. We demonstrate how this scheme provides a message passing solution to several NP-hard combinatorial problems, such as min-max clustering (a.k.a.K-clustering), asymmetric K-center clustering problem, K-packing and the bottleneck traveling salesman problem. Further-more, we theoretically relate the min-max reduc-tions and several NP hard decision problems such as clique cover, set-cover, maximum clique and Hamiltonian cycle, therefore also providing mes-sage passing solutions for these problems. Ex-perimental results suggest that message passing often provides near optimal min-max solutions for moderate size instances. 1.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207