Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the well-known cake cutting problem in which a protocol wants to divide a cake among n ≥ 2 players in such a way that each player believes that they got a fair share. The standard Robertson-Webb model allows the protocol to make two types of queries, Evaluation and Cut, to the players. A deterministic divide-and-conquer protocol with complexity O(n log n) is known. We provide the first an Ω(n log n) lower bound on the complexity of any deterministic protocol in the standard model. This improves previous lower bounds, in that the protocol is allowed to assign to a player a piece that is a union of intervals and only guarantee approximate fairness. We accomplish this by lower bounding the complexity to find, for a single player, a piece of cake that is both rich in value, and thin in width. We then introduce a version of cake cutting in which the players are able to cut with only finite precision. In this case, we can extend the Ω(n log n) lower bound to include randomized protocols.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".