MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389492788 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.333

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) using a heuristic method and the effective resistance of a graph

2023· article· en· W4389492788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hugo Tremblay, Sara Séguin, Laurie-Ann Boily, Véronique Du Paul, Sophie Lalancette

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Process Automation Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRobotHeuristicAutomationBipartite graphGraphInteger programmingMathematical optimizationProcess (computing)SoftwareArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robotic Process Automation has emerged in recent years as an important field by allowing faster and more secure processes through a reduction in the risks or errors but also an increase in the productivity rates of many industries. In this specific paper, the RPA problem aims at assigning financial transactions to software robots to minimize the total costs, induced by the licenses and utilization time. The problem is represented as a bipartite graph and the effective resistance of the graph, which is analog to an electrical circuit, is used to order the edges of a heuristic method to assign the transactions to robots. Preliminary results, based on real data from a bank, are compared to the optimal solution obtained by a linear integer programming model. They show that the heuristic method allows to obtain results quicker and that they are near the optimal solution.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicRobotic Process Automation ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207