MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947061402 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13392

On Designing Adaptive Data Structures with Adaptive Data "Sub"-Structures

2018· dissertation· en· W2947061402 on OpenAlexaff
Ekaba Bisong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHierarchyProbabilistic logicReinforcement learningAutomatonLocalityObject (grammar)Process (computing)Transitive relationState (computer science)Adaptation (eye)Artificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceData miningAlgorithmProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data structures are key pillars for optimizing computational efficiency, as they contribute in no small measure to enhancing the "speed" in the accessing and subsequent processing of data.The need for enhancing speed is critical for almost all applications and domains, and this is most relevant when real-time or near real-time efficiency is desired.This thesis proposes the use of "Adaptive" Data-Structures (ADSs) that invoke reinforcement learning schemes from the theory of Learning Automata (LA).These operate in conjunction with select re-organization rules to update themselves as they receive queries from the Environment of interaction.The result of such a process is the subsequent minimization of the cost associated with query accesses.The Environments under consideration are those that exhibit a so-called "locality of reference", and are referred to as Non-stationary Environments (NSEs).A hierarchy of data "sub"-structures is used to design Singly-Linked Lists (SLLs) First and foremost, I give thanks to the Lord, my God, for He is good, and His mercies endure forever.Let all the earth praise the Name of the Lord God and His Son Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever and ever.I am particularly grateful to my Supervisor Prof. B. John Oommen.He has been a rock and a support to me.He taught me all that I know about the field of learning automata, and by extension, the broader body of reinforcement learning.Prof. Oommen was my mentor and received me as his son.He was an example of what it means to live in holiness and righteousness.I am privileged to sit and learn under him.I would like to offer special thanks to my parents

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207