MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006138621 · doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-03-01576-x

A complete description of Golay pairs for lengths up to 100

2003· article· en· W2006138621 on OpenAlexafffund
P. B. Borwein, Ron Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Computation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsBinary Golay codeMathematicsCombinatoricsAutocorrelationBinary numberComplementary sequencesAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsArithmeticStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his 1961 paper, Marcel Golay showed how the search for pairs of binary sequences of length n n with complementary autocorrelation is at worst a 2 3 n 2 − 6 2^{\frac {3n}{2}-6} problem. Andres, in his 1977 master’s thesis, developed an algorithm which reduced this to a 2 n 2 − 1 2^{\frac {n}{2}-1} search and investigated lengths up to 58 for existence of pairs. In this paper, we describe refinements to this algorithm, enabling a 2 n 2 − 5 2^{\frac {n}{2}-5} search at length 82. We find no new pairs at the outstanding lengths 74 and 82. In extending the theory of composition, we are able to obtain a closed formula for the number of pairs of length 2 k n 2^kn generated by a primitive pair of length n n . Combining this with the results of searches at all allowable lengths up to 100, we identify five primitive pairs. All others pairs of lengths less than 100 may be derived using the methods outlined.

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)0.005
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.103

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations134
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of ComputationSame topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207