Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate crossing minimization problems for a set of permutations, where a crossing expresses a disarrangement between elements. The goal is a common permutation π ∗ which minimizes the number of crossings. In voting and social science theory this is known as the Kemeny optimal aggregation problem minimizing the Kendall-τ distance. This rank aggregation problem can be phrased as a one-sided two-layer crossing minimization problem for a series of bipartite graphs or for an edge coloured bipartite graph, where crossings are counted only for monochromatic edges. We contribute the max version of the crossing minimization problem, which attempts to minimize the discrimination against any permutation. As our results, we correct the construction from [9] and prove the NP-hardness of the common crossing minimization problem for k = 4 permutations. Then we establish a 2 − 2/k-approximation, improving the previous factor of 2. The max version is shown NP-hard for every k ≥ 4, and there is a 2-approximation. Both approximations are
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".