MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891678007 · doi:10.4230/lipics.cpm.2023.2

Approximation Algorithms for the Longest Run Subsequence Problem

2023· article· en· W6891678007 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

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubstringSubsequenceLongest increasing subsequenceLongest common subsequence problemString (physics)Symbol (formal)Sequence (biology)Bounded function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the approximability of the Longest Run Subsequence problem (LRS for short). For a string S = s_1 ⋯ s_n over an alphabet Σ, a run of a symbol σ ∈ Σ in S is a maximal substring of consecutive occurrences of σ. A run subsequence S' of S is a sequence in which every symbol σ ∈ Σ occurs in at most one run. Given a string S, the goal of LRS is to find a longest run subsequence S^* of S such that the length |S^*| is maximized over all the run subsequences of S. It is known that LRS is APX-hard even if each symbol has at most two occurrences in the input string, and that LRS admits a polynomial-time k-approximation algorithm if the number of occurrences of every symbol in the input string is bounded by k. In this paper, we design a polynomial-time (k+1)/2-approximation algorithm for LRS under the k-occurrence constraint on input strings. For the case k = 2, we further improve the approximation ratio from 3/2 to 4/3.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.248 · 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