MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152623377 · doi:10.1145/1921659.1921663

Tree exploration with logarithmic memory

2011· article· en· W2152623377 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Ambühl, Leszek Gąsieniec, Andrzej Pelc, Tomasz Radzik, Xiaohui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilRoyal Society
KeywordsTree traversalNode (physics)TraverseBinary logarithmComputer scienceTree (set theory)LogarithmGraphUpper and lower boundsMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the task of network exploration by a mobile agent (robot) with small memory. The agent has to traverse all nodes and edges of a network (represented as an undirected connected graph), and return to the starting node. Nodes of the network are unlabeled and edge ports are locally labeled at each node. The agent has no a priori knowledge of the topology of the network or of its size, and cannot mark nodes in any way. Under such weak assumptions, cycles in the network may prevent feasibility of exploration, hence we restrict attention to trees. We present an algorithm to accomplish tree exploration (with return) using O (log n )-bit memory for all n -node trees. This strengthens the result from Diks et al. [2004], where O (log 2 n )-bit memory was used for tree exploration, and matches the lower bound on memory size proved there. We also extend our O (log n )-bit memory traversal mechanism to a weaker model in which ports at each node are ordered in circular manner, however, the explicit values of port numbers are not available.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations57
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on AlgorithmsSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207