MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760492644 · doi:10.1080/10556788.2019.1692344

mts: a light framework for parallelizing tree search codes

2019· preprint· en· W2760492644 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

VenueOptimization methods & software · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsComputer scienceBacktrackingEnumerationSatisfiabilityDebuggingSearch treeParallel computingVertex (graph theory)Theoretical computer scienceBranch and boundSearch algorithmAlgorithmGraphProgramming languageDiscrete mathematicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe mts, a generic framework for parallelizing certain types of tree search programmes including reverse search, backtracking, branch and bound and satisfiability testing. It abstracts and generalizes the ideas used in parallelizing lrs, a reverse search code for vertex enumeration. mts supports sharing information between processes which is important for applications such as satisfiability testing and branch-and-bound. No parallelization is implemented in the legacy single processor programmes minimizing the changes needed and simplifying debugging. mts is written in C, uses MPI for parallelization and can be used on a network of computers. We give four examples of reverse search codes parallelized by using mts: topological sorts, spanning trees, triangulations and Galton-Watson trees. We also give a parallelization of two codes for satisfiability testing. We give experimental results comparing the parallel codes with other codes for the same 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.330 · 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