MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020957989 · doi:10.1145/3357713.3384316

Catalytic approaches to the tree evaluation problem

2020· article· en· W3020957989 on OpenAlexafffund
James Cook, Ian Mertz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBranching (polymer chemistry)MathematicsCombinatoricsBinary decision diagramTree (set theory)Binary numberAlgorithmBinary treeParameterized complexityDiscrete mathematicsChemistryArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of branching programs for the Tree Evaluation Problem (TreeEval), introduced by S. Cook et al. (TOCT 2012), remains one of the most promising approaches to separating L from P. Given a label in [k] at each leaf of a complete binary tree and an explicit function in [k]2 → [k] for recursively computing the value of each internal node from its children, the problem is to compute the value at the root node. (While the original problem allows an arbitrary-degree tree, we focus on binary trees.) The problem is parameterized by the alphabet size k and the height h of the tree. A branching program implementing the straightforward recursive algorithm uses Θ((k + 1) h ) states, organized into 2 h −1 layers of width up to k h . Until now no better deterministic algorithm was known.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.050 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207