Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent paper, Avis, Bremner, Tiwary and Watanabe gave a method for constructing linear programs (LPs) based on algorithms written in a simple programming language called Sparks. If an algorithm produces the solution x to a problem in polynomial time and space then the LP constructed is also of polynomial size and its optimum solution contains x as well as a complete execution trace of the algorithm. Their method led us to the construction of a compiler called sparktope which we describe in this paper. This compiler allows one to generate polynomial sized LPs for problems in P that have exponential extension complexity, such as matching problems in non-bipartite graphs.In this paper, we describe sparktope, the language Sparks, and the assembler instructions and LP constraints it produces. This is followed by two concrete examples, the makespan problem and the problem of testing if a matching in a graph is maximum, both of which are known to have exponential extension complexity. Computational results are given. In discussing these examples, we make use of visualization techniques included in sparktope that may be of independent interest. The extremely large linear programs produced by the compiler appear to be quite challenging to solve using currently available software. Since the optimum LP solutions can be computed independently they may be useful as benchmarks. Further enhancements of the compiler and its application are also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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".