Empirical scaling analyzer: An automated system for empirical analysis of performance scaling
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
The time complexity of algorithms, i.e., the scaling of the time required for solving a problem instance as a function of instance size, is of key interest in theoretical computer science and practical applications. In this work, we present a fully automated tool – Empirical Scaling Analyzer (ESA) – for performing sophisticated and detailed empirical scaling analyses. The methodological approach underlying ESA is based on a combination of automatic function fitting and bootstrap sampling; previous versions of the methodology have been used in prior work to characterize the empirical scaling behaviour of several prominent, high-performance SAT and TSP solvers. ESA is applicable to any algorithm or system, as long as running time data can be collected on sets of problem instances of various sizes. We present results from rigorous stress-testing to critically assess ESA on scenarios with challenging characteristics. We also give an overview of empirical scaling results obtained using ESA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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