MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132867898

K-clique and k-cycle counting in the streaming model

2006· dissertation· W7132867898 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shizhong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsStreaming algorithmSketchInteger (computer science)Pseudorandom number generatorCounting problemSet (abstract data type)Alpha (finance)Constant (computer programming)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, we give algorithms for two graph problems: k -clique (Kk) and k-cycle (Ck) counting in the streaming model. The streaming model is a computational model to solve problems on large sequential data sets. Compared to the conventional computational model, the streaming model requires efficient space and small time per item. The input of the problems is the number of vertices n v, for a given graph G, constants epsilon', delta> 0, an integer k isin; (0, nv), and a sequential set of edges of G in "an arbitrary order. The algorithm reduces the counting problems to Frequency Moment problems using a sketch over alpha - stable random variables for alpha isin; (1,1.9] and pseudorandom generators. Our algorithm is based on Indyk's technique. Indyk claims his technique is provably correct for general alpha other than 1 or 2 but he does not aware any practical applications [16]. This thesis shows that k-clique (Kk) and k-cycle (C k) counting are such applications involving general alpha isin; (1,1.9]. Our algorithm achieves space efficiency when k is small and the density of Kk or C k in G is large.

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)0.007
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207