MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799530285 · doi:10.1145/3168005

Selection and Sorting in the “Restore” Model

2018· article· en· W2799530285 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

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubroutineSortingSequence (biology)Permutation (music)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceAlgorithmSpace (punctuation)ComputationOrder (exchange)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the classical selection and sorting problems in a model where the initial permutation of the input has to be restored after completing thecomputation. Such algorithms are useful for designing space-efficient algorithms, when one encounters subproblems that have to be solved by subroutines. It is important that these subroutines leave the array in its original state after they finish so that the computation can be properly resumed. Algorithms in this model can also be relevant for saving communication time, in case the data is distributed among several machines and would need to be copied to further machines for execution of the subroutine. Although the requirement of the restoration is stringent compared to the classicalversions of the problems, this model is more relaxed than a read-only memory where the input elements are not allowed to be moved within the input array. We first show that for a sequence of n integers, selection (finding the median or more generally the k -th smallest element for a given k ) can be done in O ( n ) time using O (lg n ) words 1 of extra space in this model. In contrast, no linear-time selection algorithm is known that uses polylogarithmic space in the read-only memory model. For sorting n integers in this model, we first present an O ( n lg n )-time algorithm using O (lg n ) words of extra space that outputs (in a write only tape) the given sequence in sorted order while restoring the order of the original input in the input tape. When the universe size U is polynomial in n , we give a faster O ( n )-time algorithm (analogous to radix sort) that uses O ( n ε ) words of extra space for an arbitrarily small constant ε > 0. More generally, we show how to match the time bound of any word-RAM integer sorting algorithms using O ( n ε ) words of extra space. In sharp contrast, there is an Ω ( n 2 / S )-time lower bound for integer sorting using O ( S ) bits of space in the read-only memory model. Extension of our results to arbitrary input types beyond integers is not possible: for “indivisible” input elements, we can prove the same Ω ( n 2 / S ) lower bound for sorting in our model. We also describe space-efficient algorithms to count the number of inversions in a given sequence in this model. En route, we develop linear-time in-place algorithms to extract leading bits of the input array and to compress and decompress strings with low entropy; these techniques may be of independent interest.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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