MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953051110 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1504.06586

A Lex-BFS-based recognition algorithm for Robinsonian matrices

2015· preprint· en· W2953051110 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Monique Laurent, Matteo Seminaroti

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChangchun Institute of Applied ChemistryUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaUniversità degli Studi G. d'Annunzio Chieti - PescaraUniversité Paris DiderotUniversitetet i BergenUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeTel Aviv UniversityTechnische Universität BerlinSapienza Università di RomaUniwersytet WarszawskiAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgWeizmann Institute of ScienceEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichTechnische Universiteit EindhovenInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA)University of LeicesterCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of OxfordUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisPrinceton University
KeywordsCombinatoricsLexicographical orderRecursion (computer science)Adjacency matrixEnumerationSimple (philosophy)MathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Adjacency listSimilarity (geometry)Interval (graph theory)AlgorithmTree (set theory)Computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsGraphArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robinsonian matrices arise in the classical seriation problem and play an important role in many applications where unsorted similarity (or dissimilarity) information must be reordered. We present a new polynomial time algorithm to recognize Robinsonian matrices based on a new characterization of Robinsonian matrices in terms of straight enumerations of unit interval graphs. The algorithm is simple and is based essentially on lexicographic breadth-first search (Lex-BFS), using a divide-and-conquer strategy. When applied to a nonnegative symmetric $n\times n$ matrix with~$m$ nonzero entries and given as a weighted adjacency list, it runs in $O(d(n+m))$ time, where $d$ is the depth of the recursion tree, which is at most the number of distinct nonzero entries of $A$.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.109 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207