MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093330059 · doi:10.1145/3679015

Efficient Constructions of the Prefer-Same and Prefer-Opposite de Bruijn Sequences

2024· article· en· W3093330059 on OpenAlex

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

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDe Bruijn sequenceSequence (biology)Construct (python library)CombinatoricsGreedy algorithmMathematicsSpace (punctuation)De Bruijn graphComputer scienceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The greedy Prefer-same de Bruijn sequence construction was first presented by Eldert, Gray, Gurk, and Rubinoff in 1958. As a greedy algorithm, it has one major downside: it requires an exponential amount of space to store the length \(2^{n}\) de Bruijn sequence. Though de Bruijn sequences have been heavily studied over the last 60 years, finding an efficient construction for the Prefer-same de Bruijn sequence has remained a tantalizing open problem. In this article, we unveil the underlying structure of the Prefer-same de Bruijn sequence and solve the open problem by presenting an efficient algorithm to construct it using \(O(n)\) time per bit and only \(O(n)\) space. Following a similar approach, we also present an efficient algorithm to construct the Prefer-opposite de Bruijn sequence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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