MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206719352 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.11.025

The Speed and Threshold of the Biased Perfect Matching Game

2021· article· en· W4206719352 on OpenAlexaff
Noah Brüstle, Sarah Clusiau, Vishnu V. Narayan, Ndiamé Ndiaye, Bruce Reed, Ben Seamone

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalDawson CollegeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinityMatching (statistics)Computer scienceCircuit breakerCombinatoricsMathematical economicsAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show Maker wins the Maker-Breaker perfect matching game in n/2 + o(n) turns when the bias is at least n/ln n − f(n)n/(ln n)5/4, for any f going to infinity with n and n sufficiently large (in terms of f).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207