MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152454366 · doi:10.1109/lics.2011.12

Formalizing Randomized Matching Algorithms

2011· article· en· W2152454366 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipartite graphCorrectnessLemma (botany)Blossom algorithm3-dimensional matchingFactor-critical graphAlgorithmMatching (statistics)Perfect graph theoremComputer scienceMathematicsProbabilistic logicTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsGraphVoltage graphLine graphArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Jerábek's framework for probabilistic reasoning, we formalize the correctness of two fundamental RNC^2 algorithms for bipartite perfect matching within the theory VPV for polytime reasoning. The first algorithm is for testing if a bipartite graph has a perfect matching, and is based on the Schwartz-Zippel Lemma for polynomial identity testing applied to the Edmonds polynomial of the graph. The second algorithm, due to Mulmuley, Vazirani and Vazirani, is for finding a perfect matching, where the key ingredient of this algorithm is the Isolating Lemma.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207