MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289699818 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.04510

On the approximability of the stable matching problem with ties of size\n two

2018· preprint· W4289699818 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Chiang, Kanstantsin Pashkovich

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardinality (data modeling)Matching (statistics)Approximation algorithmMathematicsCombinatoricsConstant (computer programming)Stable marriage problemCardinal number (linguistics)Stability (learning theory)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stable matching problem is one of the central problems of algorithmic\ngame theory. If participants are allowed to have ties, the problem of finding a\nstable matching of maximum cardinality is an NP-hard problem, even when the\nties are of size two. Moreover, in this setting it is UGC-hard to provide an\napproximation for the maximum cardinality stable matching problem with a\nconstant factor smaller than 4/3. In this paper, we give a tight analysis of an\napproximation algorithm given by Huang and Kavitha for the maximum cardinality\nstable matching problem with ties of size two, demonstrating an improved\n4/3-approximation factor.\n

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207