Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show how to solve all-pairs shortest paths on n nodes in deterministic n 3> /2> Ω ( √ log n ) time, and how to count the pairs of orthogonal vectors among n 0−1 vectors in d = c log n dimensions in deterministic n 2−1/ O (log c ) time. These running times essentially match the best known randomized algorithms of Williams [46] and Abboud, Williams, and Yu [8], respectively, and the ability to count was open even for randomized algorithms. By reductions, these two results yield faster deterministic algorithms for many other problems. Our techniques can also be used to deterministically count k -satisfiability ( k -SAT) assignments on n variable formulas in 2 n - n / O ( k ) time, roughly matching the best known running times for detecting satisfiability and resolving an open problem of Santhanam [24]. A key to our constructions is an efficient way to deterministically simulate certain probabilistic polynomials critical to the algorithms of prior work, carefully applying small-biased sets and modulus-amplifying polynomials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".