MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361269916 · doi:10.1002/jcd.21882

Ordered covering arrays and upper bounds on covering codes

2023· article· en· W4361269916 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

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Designs · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCiência sem FronteirasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMathematicsUpper and lower boundsCombinatoricsConcatenation (mathematics)Cartesian productHamming codeHamming distanceDiscrete mathematicsConnection (principal bundle)Product (mathematics)Block codeAlgorithmDecoding methodsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work shows several direct and recursive constructions of ordered covering arrays (OCAs) using projection, fusion, column augmentation, derivation, concatenation, and Cartesian product. Upper bounds on covering codes in Niederreiter–Rosenbloom–Tsfasman (shorten by NRT) spaces are also obtained by improving a general upper bound. We explore the connection between ordered covering arrays and covering codes in NRT spaces, which generalize similar results for the Hamming metric. Combining the new upper bounds for covering codes in NRT spaces and ordered covering arrays, we improve upper bounds on covering codes in NRT spaces for larger alphabets. We give tables comparing the new upper bounds for covering codes to existing ones.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.231 · 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