MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624303218 · doi:10.1103/physreve.96.023312

Patch-planting spin-glass solution for benchmarking

2017· article· en· W2624303218 on OpenAlexaff
Wenlong Wang, Salvatore Mandrà, Helmut G. Katzgraber

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsQLT (Canada)
FundersLincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyOffice of the Director of National IntelligenceTexas A and M UniversityIntelligence Advanced Research Projects ActivityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpin glassComputational complexity theoryScalingSimulated annealingComputer scienceHeuristicMonte Carlo methodBenchmarkingAlgorithmSet (abstract data type)FrustrationMathematical optimizationStatistical physicsMathematicsTheoretical computer sciencePhysicsStatisticsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an algorithm to generate (not solve) spin-glass instances with planted solutions of arbitrary size and structure. First, a set of small problem patches with open boundaries is solved either exactly or with a heuristic, and then the individual patches are stitched together to create a large problem with a known planted solution. Because in these problems frustration is typically smaller than in random problems, we first assess the typical computational complexity of the individual patches using population annealing Monte Carlo, and introduce an approach that allows one to fine-tune the typical computational complexity of the patch-planted system. The scaling of the typical computational complexity of these planted instances with various numbers of patches and patch sizes is investigated and compared to random instances.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207