MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285230246 · doi:10.1109/jsait.2022.3182943

Soft BIBD and Product Gradient Codes

2022· article· en· W4285230246 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicCoding (social sciences)Code (set theory)AlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gradient coding is a coding theoretic framework to provide robustness against slow or unresponsive machines, known as stragglers, in distributed machine learning applications. Recently, Kadhe et al. (2019) proposed a gradient code based on a combinatorial design, called balanced incomplete block design (BIBD), which is shown to outperform many existing gradient codes in worst-case adversarial straggling scenarios. However, parameters for which such BIBD constructions exist are very limited (Colbourn and Dinitz, 2006). In this paper, we aim to overcome such limitations and construct gradient codes which exist for a wide range of system parameters while retaining the superior performance of BIBD gradient codes. Two such constructions are proposed, one based on a probabilistic construction that relax the stringent BIBD gradient code constraints, and the other based on taking the Kronecker product of existing gradient codes. The proposed gradient codes allow flexible choices of system parameters while retaining comparable error performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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