MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360610866 · doi:10.1142/s0217595923400122

Minimization Problems with Non-Submodular Cover Constraint

2023· article· en· W4360610866 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Operational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSubmodular set functionCover (algebra)Constraint (computer-aided design)Set functionSet cover problemMathematicsGreedy algorithmSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationCovering problemsFunction (biology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The set cover problem has been studied extensively for many years. Submodular function plays a key role in combinatorial optimization. Extending the set cover problem, we consider three submodular cover problems. The first two problems minimize linear and submodular functions, respectively, subject to the same non-submodular cover constraint. The third problem minimizes a submodular function subject to non-submodular cover and precedence constraints. Based on the concepts of submodular ratio and gap, and Lovász extension, we devise greedy and primal–dual approximation algorithms for these problems.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.263 · 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