Understanding bloom filter intersection for lazy address-set disambiguation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Bloom filter is a probabilistic bit-array-based set representation that has recently been applied to address-set disambiguation in systems that ease the burden of parallel programming. However, many of these systems intersect the Bloom filter bit-arrays to approximate address-set intersection and decide set disjointness. This is in contrast with the conventional and well-studied approach of making individual membership queries into the Bloom filter. In this paper we present much-needed probabilistic models for the unconventional application of testing set disjointness using Bloom filters. Consequently, we demonstrate that intersecting Bloom filters requires substantially larger bit-arrays to provide the same probability of false set-overlap as querying into the bit-array. For when intersection is unavoidable, we prove that partitioned Bloom filters require less space than unpartitioned. Finally, we show that for Bloom filters with a single hash function, surprisingly, intersection and querying share the same probability of false set-overlap.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".