MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911181738 · doi:10.1002/jcd.21671

On the structure of small strength‐2 covering arrays

2019· preprint· en· W2911181738 on OpenAlexafffund
Janne I. Kokkala, Karen Meagher, Reza Naserasr, Kari J. Nurmela, Patric R. J. Östergård, Brett Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Designs · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCombinatoricsAlphabetMathematicsConjectureConstructiveUpper and lower boundsDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A covering array of strength is an array of symbols from an alphabet of size such that in every subarray, every ‐tuple occurs in at least one row. A covering array is optimal if it has the smallest possible for given , , and , and uniform if every symbol occurs or times in every column. Before this paper, the only known optimal covering arrays for were orthogonal arrays, covering arrays with constructed from Sperner's Theorem and the Erdős‐Ko‐Rado Theorem, and 11 other parameter sets with and . In all these cases, there is a uniform covering array with the optimal size. It has been conjectured that there exists a uniform covering array of optimal size for all parameters. In this paper, a new lower bound as well as structural constraints for small uniform strength‐2 covering arrays is given. Moreover, covering arrays with small parameters are studied computationally. The size of an optimal strength‐2 covering array with and is now known for 21 parameter sets. Our constructive results continue to support the conjecture.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial DesignsSame topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207