MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160129920 · doi:10.1109/isit.2006.261908

On Generalized Survey Propagation: Normal Realization and Sum-Product Interpretation

2006· article· en· W2160129920 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
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormalism (music)Belief propagationMarkov random fieldComputer scienceAlgorithmMarkov chainTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligenceDecoding methodsMachine learningSegmentationImage segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A celebrated algorithmic discovery in solving constraint satisfaction problems, survey propagation (SP) and its generalization have recently demonstrated their power in areas of communications and data compression. It is known that under certain Markov random field (MRF) formalism of k-SAT problems, SP may be interpreted as an instance of belief propagation (BP). In this paper, we borrow the notion of generalized states from system theory and coding theory, and introduce a new MRF formalism - normal realization - for k-SAT problems. We show that when BP applies to this MRF, generalized SP is resulted. This new MRF formalism appears to be simpler than the existing one and the interpretation of SP as BP in this framework also appears more transparent

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207