MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219261791

Modeling Poset Convex Subsets

2015· preprint· en· W2219261791 on OpenAlexaff
Maurice Queyranne, Laurence A. Wolsey

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially ordered setMathematicsCombinatoricsConvex hullRegular polygonDiscrete mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A subset S of a poset (partially ordered set) is convex if and only if S contains every poset element which is between any two elements in S. Poset convex subsets arise in applications that involve precedence constraints, such as in project scheduling, production planning, and assembly line balancing. We give a strongly polynomial time algorithm which, given a poset and element weights (of arbitrary sign), finds a convex subset with maximum total weight. This algorithm relies on a reduction to a maximum weight filter (or closure) problem in a poset about twice the size of the given poset; the latter problem is wellsolved as a minimum s-t cut problem. We also use this reduction to construct a compact, ideal extended formulation for the convex hull Cp of the characteristic vectors of all convex subsets in poset P. We define a class of alternating inequalities that are valid for Cp and admit a linear time separation algorithm based on Dynamic Programming (DP). Furthermore, whenever the point to separate is actually in Cp the associated DP value functions induce a feasible solution to the extended formulation. This implies that the alternating inequalities and nonnegative inequalities suffice to describe Cp. We conclude by showing that this polyhedral description is minimal, and thus also admits a linear time separation algorithm.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B))Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207