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

Computing k-regret minimizing sets

2014· article· en· W79208629 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Chester, Alex Thomo, Sue Whitesides

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
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

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 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

Citations73
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207