Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many problems in computer science and applied mathematics require rounding a vector 𝐰 of fractional values lying in the interval [0,1] to a binary vector 𝐱 so that, for a given matrix 𝐀, 𝐀𝐱 is as close to 𝐀𝐰 as possible. For example, this problem arises in LP rounding algorithms used to approximate NP-hard optimization problems and in the design of uniformly distributed point sets for numerical integration. For a given matrix 𝐀, the worst-case error over all choices of 𝐰 incurred by the best possible rounding is measured by the linear discrepancy of 𝐀, a quantity studied in discrepancy theory, and introduced by Lovasz, Spencer, and Vesztergombi (EJC, 1986). We initiate the study of the computational complexity of linear discrepancy. Our investigation proceeds in two directions: (1) proving hardness results and (2) finding both exact and approximate algorithms to evaluate the linear discrepancy of certain matrices. For (1), we show that linear discrepancy is NP-hard. Thus we do not expect to find an efficient exact algorithm for the general case. Restricting our attention to matrices with a constant number of rows, we present a poly-time exact algorithm for matrices consisting of a single row and matrices with a constant number of rows and entries of bounded magnitude. We also present an exponential-time approximation algorithm for general matrices, and an algorithm that approximates linear discrepancy to within an exponential factor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".