MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235427344 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14661957.v1

Error locating: degree constraints

2021· preprint· en· W4235427344 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Dennis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegree (music)GraphComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)AlgorithmMathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Error graphs are a useful mathematical tool for representing failing interactions in a system. This representation is used as the basis for constructing an error locating array (ELA). However, if too many errors are present in a given error graph, it may not be possible to locate all interactions. We say that a graph is locatable if an ELA can be built. Bounds on the total size of an error graph are known, bounds on the degree an error graph can have have not been considered. In this thesis we explore the maximum degree an error graph may have while still guaranteeing its locatability. We consider special cases for 3 and 4 partite error graphs as well as developing bounds on the degree of a general error graph. We describe a linear time algorithm which can be used to generate tests which have at most one failing interaction.

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 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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207