MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949505605 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1406.6920

On tight bounds for binary frameproof codes

2014· preprint· en· W2949505605 on OpenAlexafffund
Chuan Guo, Douglas R. Stinson, Tran van Trung

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlphabetCombinatoricsBinary numberMathematicsPermutation (music)Binary codeHash functionDiscrete mathematicsDegree (music)Permutation matrixArithmeticPhysicsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study $w$-frameproof codes, which are equivalent to $\{1,w\}$-separating hash families. Our main results concern binary codes, which are defined over an alphabet of two symbols. For all $w \geq 3$, and for $w+1 \leq N \leq 3w$, we show that an $SHF(N; n,2, \{1,w \})$ exists only if $n \leq N$, and an $SHF(N; N,2, \{1,w \})$ must be a permutation matrix of degree $N$.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.164
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207