From Streamlined Combinatorial Search to Efficient Constructive Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, significant progress in the area of search, constraint satisfaction, and automated reasoning has been driven in part by the study of challenge problems from combinatorics and finite algebra. This work has led to the discovery of interesting discrete structures with intricate mathematical properties. While some of those results have resolved open questions and conjectures, a shortcoming is that they generally do not provide further mathematical insights, from which one could derive more general observations. We propose an approach that integrates specialized combinatorial search, using so-called streamlining, with a human computation component. We use this approach to discover efficient constructive procedures for generating certain classes of combinatorial objects of any size. More specifically, using our framework, we discovered two complementary efficient constructions for generating so-called Spatially Balanced Latin squares (SBLS) of any order N, such that 2N+1 is prime. Previously constructions for SBLSs were not known. Our approach also enabled us to derive a new lower bound for so-called weak Schur numbers, improving on a series of earlier results for Schur numbers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".