MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803286074 · doi:10.1080/10236198.2018.1471471

On the solution space of the Golomb recursion

2018· article· en· W2803286074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Difference Equations and Applications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGolomb codingMathematicsRecursion (computer science)ConjectureSequence (biology)Equivalence (formal languages)Equivalence relationCombinatoricsSpace (punctuation)Solution setPure mathematicsSet (abstract data type)Discrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the nature of the solution space for the Golomb nested recursion g(n)=g(n-g(n-1))+1. On this solution space, we define a natural equivalence relation and restrict our attention to non-equivalent solutions. We describe and prove an algorithm that determines whether a given set of initial conditions generates a solution. Up to equivalence, there is a unique solution whose forward differences are eventually either 0 or 1, namely, the Golomb sequence g0=1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,⋯, generated by the initial condition g0(1)=1. This sequence is asymptotic to 2n; we conjecture that this is true of every solution. We further conjecture that each solution has what we call a generational structure that abstracts combinatorial properties of g0. It appears that for any given solution, its generations are composed of only a finite number of building blocks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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