MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404801591 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.632

A heuristic method to solve an assignment problem using a random walk approximation

2024· article· en· W4404801591 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

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Data Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicRandom walkMathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past years, Robotic Process Automation (RPA) has emerged as a significant tool to enhance productivity across various industries by automating repetitive tasks performed on computer user interfaces, thereby reducing error rates. In this paper, the RPA problem is addressed as an unbounded assignment problem. Specifically, the objective of the problem is to assign robots to transactions that must be completed at specific time periods, while minimizing the total number of robots required. The problem is solved using a bipartite graph representation and a random walk approximation, which defines an ordering of the transactions and periods in order to determine a valid assignment. The heuristic is evaluated on a real data set from a financial institution and compared to previous results obtained on generated data. The results obtained with the random walk approximation heuristics on the real data set is optimal in terms of number of robots.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 communication0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.297 · 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