MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294012348

Almost Online Square Packing

2014· article· en· W2294012348 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

VenueCanadian Conference on Computational Geometry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitive analysisLogarithmSquare (algebra)Online algorithmAdvice (programming)OraclePacking problemsComputer scienceAlgorithmSequence (biology)MathematicsMathematical optimizationUpper and lower bounds
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the square packing problem, the goal is to pack squares of dierent sizes into the smallest number of bins (squares) of uniform size. We introduce an almostonline square packing algorithm which places squares in an online, sequential manner. In doing so, it receives advice of logarithmic size from an oine oracle which runs in linear time. Our algorithm achieve a competitive ratio of at most 1:84 which is signicantly better than the best existing online algorithm which has a competitive ratio of 2.1187. In introducing the algorithm, we have been inspired by the advice model for the analyses of online problems. Our algorithm can also be regarded as a streaming algorithm which packs an input sequence of squares in two passes using a space of logarithmic size.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.232 · 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