MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031249145

Combinatorial batch codes.

2008· preprint· en· W3031249145 on OpenAlex
Maura B. Paterson, Douglas R. Stinson, Ruizhong Wei

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

VenueIACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServerComputer scienceCode (set theory)Probabilistic logicTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsOperating systemMathematicsProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study batch codes, which were introduced by Ishai, Kushilevitz, Ostrovsky and Sahai in [3]. A batch code specifies a method to distribute a database of n items among m devices (servers) in such a way that any k items can be retrieved by reading at most t items from each of the servers. It is of interest to devise batch codes that minimize the total storage, denoted by N, over all m servers. In this paper, we study the special case t = 1, under the assumption that every server stores a subset of the items. This is purely a combinatorial problem, so we call this kind of batch code a “combinatorial batch code”. For various parameter situations, we are able to present batch codes that are optimal with respect to the storage requirement, N. We also study uniform codes, where every item is stored in precisely c of the m servers (such a code is said to have rate 1/c). Interesting new results are presented in the cases c = 2, k − 2 and k − 1. In addition, we obtain improved existence results for arbitrary fixed c using the probabilistic method. 1

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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