Sorting under Partial Information (without the Ellipsoid Algorithm)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit the well-known problem of sorting under partial information: sort a finite set given the outcomes of comparisons between some pairs of elements. The input is a partially ordered set P, and solving the problem amounts to discovering an unknown linear extension of P, using pairwise comparisons. The information-theoretic lower bound on the number of comparisons needed in the worst case is log e(P), the binary logarithm of the number of linear extensions of P. In a breakthrough paper, Jeff Kahn and Jeong Han Kim (J. Comput. System Sci. 51 (3), 390-399, 1995) showed that there exists a polynomial-time algorithm for the problem achieving this bound up to a constant factor. Their algorithm invokes the ellipsoid algorithm at each iteration for determining the next comparison, making it impractical. We develop efficient algorithms for sorting under partial information. Like Kahn and Kim, our approach relies on graph entropy. However, our algorithms differ in essential ways from theirs. Rather than resorting to convex programming for computing the entropy, we approximate the entropy, or make sure it is computed only once, in a restricted class of graphs, permitting the use of a simpler algorithm. Specifically, we present: - an O(n^2) algorithm performing O(log n log e(P)) comparisons; - an O(n^2.5) algorithm performing at most (1+ epsilon) log e(P) + O_epsilon (n) comparisons; - an O(n^2.5) algorithm performing O(log e(P)) comparisons. All our algorithms can be implemented in such a way that their computational bottleneck is confined in a preprocessing phase, while the sorting phase is completed in O(q) + O(n) time, where q denotes the number of comparisons performed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".