Bibliographic record
Abstract
We give a combinatorial proof of the Chernoff-Hoeffding concentration bound [Che52, Hoe63], which says that the sum of independent {0, 1}-valued random variables is highly concentrated around the expected value. Unlike the standard proofs, our proof does not use the method of higher moments, but rather uses a simple and intuitive counting argument. In addition, our proof is constructive in the following sense: if the sum of the given random variables is not concentrated around the expectation, then we can efficiently find (with high probability) a subset of the random variables that are statistically dependent. As simple corollaries, we also get the concentration bounds for [0, 1]-valued random variables and Azuma’s inequality for martingales [Azu67]. We interpret the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound as a statement about Direct Product Theorems. Infor-mally, a Direct Product Theorem says that the complexity of solving all k instances of a hard problem increases exponentially with k; a Threshold Direct Product Theorem says that it is exponentially hard in k to solve even a significant fraction of the given k instances of a hard problem. We show the equivalence between optimal Direct Product Theorems and optimal Threshold Direct Product Theorems. As an application of this connection, we get the Chernoff bound for expander walks [Gil98] from the (simpler to prove) hitting property [AKS87], as well as an optimal (in a certain range of parameters) Threshold Direct Product Theorem for weakly verifiable puzzles from the optimal Direct Product Theorem [CHS05]. We also get a simple constructive proof of Unger’s result [Ung09] saying that XOR Lemmas imply Threshold
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 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".