Tight lower bounds for online labeling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the file maintenance problem (also called the online labeling problem) in which n integer items from the set {1,...,r} are to be stored in an array of size m >= n. The items are presented sequentially in an arbitrary order, and must be stored in the array in sorted order (but not necessarily in consecutive locations in the array). Each new item must be stored in the array before the next item is received. If r<=m then we can simply store item j in location j but if r>m then we may have to shift the location of stored items to make space for a newly arrived item. The algorithm is charged each time an item is stored in the array, or moved to a new location. The goal is to minimize the total number of such moves done by the algorithm. This problem is non-trivial when n=1, algorithms for this problem with cost O(log(n)^2) per item have been given [IKR81, Wil92, BCD+02]. When m=n, algorithms with cost O(log(n)^3) per item were given [Zha93, BS07]. In this paper we prove lower bounds that show that these algorithms are optimal, up to constant factors. Previously, the only lower bound known for this range of parameters was a lower bound of Ω(log(n)^2) for the restricted class of smooth algorithms [DSZ05a, Zha93]. We also provide an algorithm for the sparse case: If the number of items is polylogarithmic in the array size then the problem can be solved in amortized constant time per item.
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 | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".