Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many proofs in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science are based on the probabilistic method. To prove the existence of a good object, we pick a random object and show that it is bad with low probability. This method is effective, but the underlying probabilistic machinery can be daunting. “Encoding arguments” provide an alternative presentation in which probabilistic reasoning is encapsulated in a “uniform encoding lemma.” This lemma provides an upper bound on the probability of an event using the fact that a uniformly random choice from a set of size n cannot be encoded with fewer than log 2 n bits on average. With the lemma, the argument reduces to devising an encoding where bad objects have short codewords. In this expository article, we describe the basic method and provide a simple tutorial on how to use it. After that, we survey many applications to classic problems from discrete mathematics and computer science. We also give a generalization for the case of non-uniform distributions, as well as a rigorous justification for the use of non-integer codeword lengths in encoding arguments. These latter two results allow encoding arguments to be applied more widely and to produce tighter results.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".