Comparison-based time-space lower bounds for selection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We establish the first nontrivial lower bounds on time-space trade-offs for the selection problem. We prove that any comparison-based randomized algorithm for finding the median requires Ω( n log log S n ) expected time in the RAM model (or more generally in the comparison branching program model), if we have S bits of extra space besides the read-only input array. This bound is tight for all S > log n , and remains true even if the array is given in a random order. Our result thus answers a 16-year-old question of Munro and Raman [1996], and also complements recent lower bounds that are restricted to sequential access, as in the multipass streaming model [Chakrabarti et al. 2008b]. We also prove that any comparison-based, deterministic, multipass streaming algorithm for finding the median requires Ω( n log * ( n / s )+ n log s n ) worst-case time (in scanning plus comparisons), if we have s cells of space. This bound is also tight for all s >log 2 n . We get deterministic lower bounds for I/O-efficient algorithms as well. The proofs in this article are self-contained and do not rely on communication complexity techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it