MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562106824 · doi:10.1002/jcd.21553

Asymptotic Size of Covering Arrays: An Application of Entropy Compression

2017· article· en· W2562106824 on OpenAlexafffund
Nevena Francetić, Brett Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Designs · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsAlphabetRowLemma (botany)Entropy (arrow of time)Upper and lower boundsSet (abstract data type)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A covering array is an array A such that each cell of A takes a value from a v‐set V, which is called the alphabet. Moreover, the set is contained in the set of rows of every subarray of A. The parameter N is called the size of an array and denotes the smallest N for which a exists. It is well known that [10]. In this paper, we derive two upper bounds on using an algorithmic approach to the Lovász local lemma also known as entropy compression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial DesignsSame topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207