MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206308010 · doi:10.1137/1.9781611977073.78

Selectable Heaps and Optimal Lazy Search Trees

2022· book-chapter· en· W4206308010 on OpenAlexaff
Bryce Sandlund, Lingyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeap (data structure)Priority queueAmortized analysisMerge (version control)CombinatoricsQueueBinary logarithmBinary search treeData structureMathematicsTime complexityComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsParallel computingAlgorithmBinary treeProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show the O(log n) time extract minimum function of efficient priority queues can be generalized to the extraction of the k smallest elements in O(k log(n/k)) time1, which we prove optimal for comparison-based priority queues with o(log n) time insertion. We show heap-ordered tree selection (Kaplan et al., SOSA '19) can be applied on the heap-ordered trees of the classic Fibonacci heap and Brodal queue, in O(k log(n/k)) amortized and worst-case time, respectively. We additionally show the deletion of k elements or selection without extraction can be performed on both heaps, also in O(k log(n/k)) time. Surprisingly, all operations are possible with no modifications to the original Fibonacci heap and Brodal queue data structures. We then apply the result to lazy search trees (Sandlund & Wild, FOCS '20), creating a new interval data structure based on selectable heaps. This gives optimal O(B+n) time lazy search tree performance, lowering insertion complexity into a gap Δi from O(log(n/|Δi|) + log log n) to O(log(n/|Δi|)) time. An O(1) time merge operation is also made possible when used as a priority queue, among other situations. If Brodal queues are used, all runtimes of the lazy search tree can be made worst-case.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooksSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207