MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131069251 · doi:10.57717/cgt.v5i2.72

Finding maximum matchings in RDV graphs efficiently

2024· article· en· W7131069251 on OpenAlexaff
Therese Biedl, Prashant Gokhale

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in Geometry and Topology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatching (statistics)GraphSet (abstract data type)Representation (politics)Range (aeronautics)Independent set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the maximum matching problem in RDV graphs, i.e., vertex-intersection graphs of downward paths in a rooted tree. We show that this problem can be reduced to a problem of testing (repeatedly) whether a horizontal segment intersects one of a dynamically changing set of vertical segments, which in turn reduces to a range minimum query. Using a suitable data structure, we can therefore find a maximum matching in O(n log n) time (presuming a linear-sized representation of the graph is given), i.e., without even looking at all edges.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in Geometry and TopologySame topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207