MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160146903 · doi:10.1287/moor.1070.0254

The Demand-Matching Problem

2007· article· en· W2160146903 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

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipartite graphMathematicsKnapsack problemCardinality (data modeling)Matching (statistics)CombinatoricsTree (set theory)Clos networkDiscrete mathematicsApproximation algorithmTime complexityNode (physics)3-dimensional matchingMathematical optimizationGraphComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine formulations for the well-known b-matching problem in the presence of integer demands on the edges. A subset M of edges is feasible if for each node v the total demand of edges in M incident to v is at most b v . We examine the system of star inequalities for this problem. This system yields an exact linear description for b-matchings in bipartite graphs. For the demand version, we show that the integrality gap for this system is at least 2.5 and at most 2.764. For general graphs, the gap lies between 3 and 3.264. We also describe a 3-approximation algorithm (2.5 for bipartite graphs) for the cardinality version of the problem. A fully polynomial approximation scheme is also presented for the problem on a tree, thus generalising a well-known result for the knapsack problem. Recently, the notion of demand matching has arisen in the design of Clos network switches.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.344 · 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