Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A linking system of difference sets is a collection of mutually related group difference sets, whose advantageous properties have been used to extend classical constructions of systems of linked symmetric designs. The central problems are to determine which groups contain a linking system of difference sets, and how large such a system can be. All previous constructive results for linking systems of difference sets are restricted to 2‐groups. We use an elementary projection argument to show that neither the McFarland/Dillon nor the Spence construction of difference sets can give rise to a linking system of difference sets in non‐2‐groups. We make a connection to Kerdock and bent sets, which provides large linking systems of difference sets in elementary abelian 2‐groups. We give a new construction for linking systems of difference sets in 2‐groups, taking advantage of a previously unrecognized connection with group difference matrices. This construction simplifies and extends prior results, producing larger linking systems than before in certain 2‐groups, new linking systems in other 2‐groups for which no system was previously known, and the first known examples in nonabelian groups.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".