Quantifying Algorithmic Improvements over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the progress made in AI and contributions to the state of the art is of major concern to the community. Recently, Frechette et al. [2016] advocated performing such analysis via the Shapley value, a concept from coalitional game theory. In this paper, we argue that while this general idea is sound, it unfairly penalizes older algorithms that advanced the state of the art when introduced, but were then outperformed by modern counterparts. Driven by this observation, we introduce the temporal Shapley value, a measure that addresses this problem while maintaining the desirable properties of the (classical) Shapley value. We use the tempo- ral Shapley value to analyze the progress made in (i) the different versions of the Quicksort algorithm; (ii) the annual SAT competitions 2007–2014; (iii) an annual competition of Constraint Programming, namely the MiniZinc challenge 2014–2016. Our analysis reveals novel insights into the development made in these important areas of research over time.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.020 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".