MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022247802 · doi:10.1142/s0218195919500092

The Most Likely Object to be Seen Through a Window

2019· article· en· W3022247802 on OpenAlexaff
Paz Carmi, Farah Chanchary, Anil Maheshwari, Michiel Smid

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsInterval (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study data structures to answer window queries using stochastic input sequences. The first problem is the most likely maximal point in a query window: Let [Formula: see text] be constants, with [Formula: see text]. Let [Formula: see text] be a set of [Formula: see text] points in [Formula: see text], for some fixed [Formula: see text]. For [Formula: see text], each point in [Formula: see text] is associated with a probability [Formula: see text] of existence. A point [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text] is on the maximal layer of [Formula: see text] if there is no other point [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text] such that [Formula: see text]. Consider a random subset of [Formula: see text] obtained by including, for [Formula: see text], each point of [Formula: see text] independently with probability [Formula: see text]. For a query interval [Formula: see text], with [Formula: see text], we report the point in [Formula: see text] that has the highest probability to be on the maximal layer of [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text] time using [Formula: see text] space. We solve a special problem as follows. A sequence [Formula: see text] of [Formula: see text] points in [Formula: see text] is given ([Formula: see text]), where each point [Formula: see text] has a probability [Formula: see text] of existence associated with it. Given a query interval [Formula: see text] and an integer [Formula: see text] with [Formula: see text], we report the probability of [Formula: see text] to be on the maximal layer of [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text] time using [Formula: see text] space. The second problem we consider is the most likely common element problem. Let [Formula: see text] be the universe. Let [Formula: see text] be a sequence of random subsets of [Formula: see text] such that for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], element [Formula: see text] is added to [Formula: see text] with probability [Formula: see text] (independently of other choices). Let [Formula: see text] be a fixed real number with [Formula: see text]. For query indices [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], with [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], we decide whether there exists an element [Formula: see text] with [Formula: see text] such that [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text] time using [Formula: see text] space and report these elements in [Formula: see text] time, where [Formula: see text] is the size of the output.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.013
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & ApplicationsSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207