MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412216168 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v15i1a6

Sorting under partial (interval order) information

2022· article· en· W4412216168 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ivor van der Hoog, Irina Kostitsyna, Maarten Löffler, Bettina Speckmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekEuropean Commission
KeywordsInterval (graph theory)SortingOrder (exchange)MathematicsComputer scienceCombinatoricsAlgorithmEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study how to efficiently order a set of imprecise points. In one dimension, the order of a set of points is their sorted order from low to high. A set of imprecise points in the preprocessing model consists of a set of $n$ uncertainty regions $\mathcal{R} = \{R_1, R_2, \ldots R_n \}$ and a set of $n$ points $P = \{ p_1, p_2, \ldots p_n\}$ such that for every $R_i \in \mathcal{R}$ there is an associated point $p_i \in P$ with $p_i \in P$. In one dimension, the set $\mathcal{R}$ is a set of intervals which induces a partial order such that the total order of the underlying true points $P$ extends that partial order. We show how to preprocess the partial order induced by $\mathcal{R}$, such that given the point set $P$ we can uncover the underlying total order in uncertainty-region optimal time. Specifically, we parametrize the degree of overlap by the intervals with a measure we call the ambiguity of the set $\mathcal{R}$ and we show that the ambiguity of $\mathcal{R}$ is a lower bound for the time required to sort the points $P$. This paper can be seen as a geometric variant of sorting under partial information, which is a well-studied topic within computer science.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207