Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combinatorial discrepancy is a complexity measure of a collection of sets which quantifies how well the sets in the collection can be simultaneously balanced. More precisely, we are given an -point set , and a collection of subsets of , and our goal is color with two colors, red and blue, so that the maximum over the of the absolute difference between the number of red elements and the number of blue elements (the discrepancy) is minimized. Combinatorial discrepancy has many applications in mathematics and computer science, including constructions of uniformly distributed point sets, and lower bounds for data structures and private data analysis algorithms. We investigate the combinatorial discrepancy of geometrically defined systems, in which is an -point set in -dimensional space, and is the collection of subsets of induced by dilations and translations of a fixed convex polytope . Such set systems include systems of sets induced by axis-aligned boxes, whose discrepancy is the subject of the well-known Tusnády problem. We prove new discrepancy upper and lower bounds for such set systems by extending the approach based on factorization norms previously used by the author, Matoušek, and Talwar. We also outline applications of our results to geometric discrepancy, data structure lower bounds, and differential privacy.
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 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".