Periodicity testing with sublinear samples and space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we are interested in periodic trends in long data streams in the presence of computational constraints. To this end; we present algorithms for discovering periodic trends in the combinatorial property testing model in a data stream S of length n using o ( n ) samples and space. In accordance with the property testing model, we first explore the notion of being “close” to periodic by defining three different notions of self-distance through relaxing different notions of exact periodicity. An input S is then called approximately periodic if it exhibits a small self-distance (with respect to any one self-distance defined). We show that even though the different definitions of exact periodicity are equivalent, the resulting definitions of self-distance and approximate periodicity are not; we also show that these self-distances are constant approximations of each other. Afterwards, we present algorithms which distinguish between the two cases where S is exactly periodic and S is far from periodic with only a constant probability of error. Our algorithms sample only O (√ n log 2 n ) (or O (√ n log 4 n ), depending on the self-distance) positions and use as much space. They can also find, using o ( n ) samples and space, the largest/smallest period, and/or all of the approximate periods of S . These algorithms can also be viewed as working on streaming inputs where each data item is seen once and in order, storing only a sublinear ( O (√ n log 2 n ) or O (√ n log 4 n )) size sample from which periodicities are identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".