Improved algorithms for optimal embeddings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, the notion of metric embeddings with small distortion has received wide attention in the literature, with applications in combinatorial optimization, discrete mathematics, and bio-informatics. The notion of embedding is, given two metric spaces on the same number of points, to find a bijection that minimizes maximum Lipschitz and bi-Lipschitz constants. One reason for the popularity of the notion is that algorithms designed for one metric space can be applied to a different one, given an embedding with small distortion. The better distortion, the better the effectiveness of the original algorithm applied to a new metric space. The goal recently studied by Kenyon et al. [2004] is to consider all possible embeddings between two finite metric spaces and to find the best possible one; that is, consider a single objective function over the space of all possible embeddings that minimizes the distortion. In this article we continue this important direction. In particular, using a theorem of Albert and Atkinson [2005], we are able to provide an algorithm to find the optimal bijection between two line metrics, provided that the optimal distortion is smaller than 13.602. This improves the previous bound of 3 + 2√2, solving an open question posed by Kenyon et al. [2004]. Further, we show an inherent limitation of algorithms using the “forbidden pattern” based dynamic programming approach, in that they cannot find optimal mapping if the optimal distortion is more than 7 + 4√3 (≃ 13.928). Thus, our results are almost optimal for this method. We also show that previous techniques for general embeddings apply to a (slightly) more general class of metrics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".