Poisson-process limit laws yield Gumbel max-min and min-max
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link" says the proverb. But what about a collection of statistically identical chains: How long till all chains fail? The answer to this question is given by the max-min of a matrix whose (i,j) entry is the failure time of link j of chain i: take the minimum of each row, and then the maximum of the rows' minima. The corresponding min-max is obtained by taking the maximum of each column, and then the minimum of the columns' maxima. The min-max applies to the storage of critical data. Indeed, consider multiple backup copies of a set of critical data items, and consider the (i,j) matrix entry to be the time at which item j on copy i is lost; then, the min-max is the time at which the first critical data item is lost. In this paper we address random matrices whose entries are independent and identically distributed random variables. We establish Poisson-process limit laws for the row's minima and for the columns' maxima. Then, we further establish Gumbel limit laws for the max-min and for the min-max. The limit laws hold whenever the entries' distribution has a density, and yield highly applicable approximation tools and design tools for the max-min and min-max of large random matrices. A brief of the results presented herein is given in: Gumbel central limit theorem for max-min and min-max [Eliazar, Metzler, and Reuveni, Phys. Rev. E 100, 020104 (2019)10.1103/PhysRevE.100.020104].
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it