MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084173750

Time-space tradeoffs for all-nearest-larger-neighbors problems

2013· article· en· W3084173750 on OpenAlexaff
Tetsuo Asano, David Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPointer (user interface)Upper and lower boundsMonotone polygonMathematicsCombinatoricsTime complexityPerfect hash functionSpace (punctuation)String (physics)Computer scienceTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmCryptographyArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses two versions of a fundamental problem, referred to as the All-Nearest-Larger-Neighbors (ANLN) problem, defined as follows: given a one-dimensional array A of n real-valued keys, find, for each array element A[i], the index of a nearest array element, if one exists, whose key is strictly larger than A[i]. We develop algorithms for one- and two-sided versions of the ANLN problem that run in O(n logbn) time, using Θ(b) work-space, for all b=O(n), exhibiting a full time-space tradeoff that subsumes all known (memory-restricted) special cases. In addition, a non-trivial lower bound is developed for the time complexity of solving both versions on a pointer machine with limited work-space. This lower bound matches the time complexity of our algorithms, when restricted to constant space. The fundamental nature of ANLN problems make them intrinsically interesting to study. They also capture the essence of a variety of other familiar problems, such as determining the forest structure associated with a given string of nested parentheses, and triangulating monotone polygons. For both of these, we describe reductions to versions of the ANLN problem, achieving the same time-space tradeoffs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207