MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Secretary Matching Meets Probing with Commitment

2021· article· en· W3202345783 on OpenAlexaff
Allan Borodin, Calum MacRury, Akash Rakheja

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipartite graphMatching (statistics)Competitive analysisCombinatoricsKnapsack problemSecretary problemOnline algorithmOrder (exchange)Stochastic block modelGeneralizationSet (abstract data type)Time complexityMathematicsContext (archaeology)OracleMatroidDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationGraphUpper and lower boundsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the online bipartite matching problem within the context of stochastic probing with commitment. This is the one-sided online bipartite matching problem where edges adjacent to an online node must be probed to determine if they exist based on edge probabilities that become known when an online vertex arrives. If a probed edge exists, it must be used in the matching. We consider the competitiveness of online algorithms in the adversarial order model (AOM) and the secretary/random order model (ROM). More specifically, we consider an unknown bipartite stochastic graph G = (U,V,E) where U is the known set of offline vertices, V is the set of online vertices, G has edge probabilities (p_{e})_{e ∈ E}, and G has edge weights (w_{e})_{e ∈ E} or vertex weights (w_u)_{u ∈ U}. Additionally, G has a downward-closed set of probing constraints (𝒞_{v})_{v ∈ V}, where 𝒞_v indicates which sequences of edges adjacent to an online vertex v can be probed. This model generalizes the various settings of the classical bipartite matching problem (i.e. with and without probing). Our contributions include the introduction and analysis of probing within the random order model, and our generalization of probing constraints which includes budget (i.e. knapsack) constraints. Our algorithms run in polynomial time assuming access to a membership oracle for each 𝒞_v. In the vertex weighted setting, for adversarial order arrivals, we generalize the known 1/2 competitive ratio to our setting of 𝒞_v constraints. For random order arrivals, we show that the same algorithm attains an asymptotic competitive ratio of 1-1/e, provided the edge probabilities vanish to 0 sufficiently fast. We also obtain a strict competitive ratio for non-vanishing edge probabilities when the probing constraints are sufficiently simple. For example, if each 𝒞_v corresponds to a patience constraint 𝓁_v (i.e., 𝓁_v is the maximum number of probes of edges adjacent to v), and any one of following three conditions is satisfied (each studied in previous papers), then there is a conceptually simple greedy algorithm whose competitive ratio is 1-1/e. - When the offline vertices are unweighted. - When the online vertex probabilities are "vertex uniform"; i.e., p_{u,v} = p_v for all (u,v) ∈ E. - When the patience constraint 𝓁_v satisfies 𝓁_v ∈ {[1,|U|} for every online vertex; i.e., every online vertex either has unit or full patience. Finally, in the edge weighted case, we match the known optimal 1/e asymptotic competitive ratio for the classic (i.e. without probing) secretary matching problem.

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)0.019
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207