Greedy Bipartite Matching in Random Type Poisson Arrival Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a new random input model for bipartite matching which we call the Random Type Poisson Arrival Model. Just like in the known i.i.d. model (introduced by Feldman et al. 2009), online nodes have types in our model. In contrast to the adversarial types studied in the known i.i.d. model, following the random graphs studied in Mastin and Jaillet 2016, in our model each type graph is generated randomly by including each offline node in the neighborhood of an online node with probability $c/n$ independently. In our model, nodes of the same type appear consecutively in the input and the number of times each type node appears is distributed according to the Poisson distribution with parameter 1. We analyze the performance of the simple greedy algorithm under this input model. The performance is controlled by the parameter $c$ and we are able to exactly characterize the competitive ratio for the regimes $c = o(1)$ and $c = ω(1)$. We also provide a precise bound on the expected size of the matching in the remaining regime of constant $c$. We compare our results to the previous work of Mastin and Jaillet who analyzed the simple greedy algorithm in the $G_{n,n,p}$ model where each online node type occurs exactly once. We essentially show that the approach of Mastin and Jaillet can be extended to work for the Random Type Poisson Arrival Model, although several nontrivial technical challenges need to be overcome. Intuitively, one can view the Random Type Poisson Arrival Model as the $G_{n,n,p}$ model with less randomness; that is, instead of each online node having a new type, each online node has a chance of repeating the previous type.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".