MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W79208629 · doi:10.14778/2732269.2732275

Computing k-regret minimizing sets

2014· article· en· W79208629 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretDimension (graph theory)Relaxation (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Greedy algorithmLinear programming relaxationDynamic programmingLinear programmingDuality (order theory)MathematicsCombinatoricsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regret minimizing sets are a recent approach to representing a dataset D by a small subset R of size r of representative data points. The set R is chosen such that executing any top-1 query on R rather than D is minimally perceptible to any user. However, such a subset R may not exist, even for modest sizes, r. In this paper, we introduce the relaxation to k -regret minimizing sets, whereby a top-1 query on R returns a result imperceptibly close to the top- k on D. We show that, in general, with or without the relaxation, this problem is NP-hard. For the specific case of two dimensions, we give an efficient dynamic programming, plane sweep algorithm based on geometric duality to find an optimal solution. For arbitrary dimension, we give an empirically effective, greedy, randomized algorithm based on linear programming. With these algorithms, we can find subsets R of much smaller size that better summarize D , using small values of k larger than 1.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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