MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

String Matching: Communication, Circuits, and Learning

2019· article· en· W2977350080 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

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsString searching algorithmUpper and lower boundsVC dimensionCommunication complexityMatching (statistics)String (physics)Sample complexityMathematicsComputational complexity theoryCircuit complexityPattern matchingDimension (graph theory)Classifier (UML)Discrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceComputer scienceElectronic circuitAlgorithmCombinatoricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

String matching is the problem of deciding whether a given n-bit string contains a given k-bit pattern. We study the complexity of this problem in three settings. 
\n- Communication complexity. For small k, we provide near-optimal upper and lower bounds on the communication complexity of string matching. For large k, our bounds leave open an exponential gap; we exhibit some evidence for the existence of a better protocol. 
\n- Circuit complexity. We present several upper and lower bounds on the size of circuits with threshold and DeMorgan gates solving the string matching problem. Similarly to the above, our bounds are near-optimal for small k. 
\n- Learning. We consider the problem of learning a hidden pattern of length at most k relative to the classifier that assigns 1 to every string that contains the pattern. We prove optimal bounds on the VC dimension and sample complexity of this problem.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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