MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403100092 · doi:10.1007/s10107-024-02146-4

Dyadic linear programming and extensions

2024· article· en· W4403100092 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

VenueMathematical Programming · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilOffice of Naval Research GlobalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)MathematicsRational numberInteger (computer science)Binary numberClosure (psychology)Discrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A rational number is dyadic if it has a finite binary representation $$p/2^k$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>p</mml:mi> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mi>k</mml:mi> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , where p is an integer and k is a nonnegative integer. Dyadic rationals are important for numerical computations because they have an exact representation in floating-point arithmetic on a computer. A vector is dyadic if all its entries are dyadic rationals. We study the problem of finding a dyadic optimal solution to a linear program, if one exists. We show how to solve dyadic linear programs in polynomial time. We give bounds on the size of the support of a solution as well as on the size of the denominators. We identify properties that make the solution of dyadic linear programs possible: closure under addition and negation, and density, and we extend the algorithmic framework beyond the dyadic 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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.300 · 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