MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165265954 · doi:10.1109/ccc.1997.612318

On randomization in online computation

2002· article· en· W2165265954 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
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized algorithmBounding overwatchOnline algorithmComputer scienceMaximizationBounded functionEquivalence (formal languages)Competitive analysisRandomized experimentComputationTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceDiscrete mathematicsUpper and lower boundsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper concerns two fundamental but somewhat neglected issues both related to the design and analysis of randomized online algorithms. Motivated by early results in game theory we define several types of randomized online algorithms discuss known conditions for their equivalence and give a natural example distinguishing between two kinds of randomizations. In particular we show that mixed randomized memoryless paging algorithms can achieve strictly better competitive performance than behavioral randomized algorithms. Next we summarize known-and derive new-"Yao Principle" theorems for lower bounding competitive ratios of randomized online algorithms. This leads to six different theorems for bounded/unbounded and minimization/maximization problems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207