Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximate computing is an emerging paradigm enabling tradeoffs between accuracy and efficiency. However, a fundamental challenge persists: state-of-the-art techniques lack the ability to enforce runtime guarantees on accuracy. The convention is to 1) employ offline or online accuracy models, or 2) present experimental results that demonstrate empirically low error. Unfortunately, these approaches are still unable to guarantee acceptability of all application outputs at runtime. We offer a solution that revisits concepts from anytime algorithms. Originally explored for real-time decision problems, anytime algorithms have the property of producing results with increasing accuracy over time. We propose the Anytime Automaton, a new computation model that executes applications as a parallel pipeline of anytime approximations. An automaton produces approximate versions of the application output with increasing accuracy, guaranteeing that the final precise version is eventually reached. The automaton can be stopped whenever the output is deemed acceptable; otherwise, it is a simple matter of letting it run longer. We present an in-depth analysis of the model and demonstrate attractive runtime-accuracy profiles on various applications. Our anytime automaton is the first step towards systems where the acceptability of an application's output directly governs the amount of time and energy expended.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it