Generalizing contexts amenable to greedy and greedy-like algorithms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One central question in theoretical computer science is how to solve problems accurately and quickly. Despite the encouraging development of various algorithmic techniques in the past, we are still at the very beginning of the understanding of these techniques. One particularly interesting paradigm is the greedy algorithm paradigm. Informally, a greedy algorithm builds a solution to a problem incrementally by making locally optimal decisions at each step. Greedy algorithms are important in algorithmdesign as they are natural, conceptually simple to state and usually efficient. Despite wide applications of greedy algorithms in practice, their behaviour is notwell understood. However,we do knowthat in several specific settings, greedy algorithms can achieve good results. This thesis focuses on examining contexts in which greedy and greedy-like algorithms are successful, and extending them to more general settings. In particular, we investigate structural properties of graphs and set systems, families of special functions, and greedy approximation algorithms for several classic NP-hard problems in those contexts. A natural phenomenon we observe is a trade-off between the approximation ratio and the generality of those contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it