On the Optimal Bounds for Noisy Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit the problem of computing with noisy information considered in Feige et al. 1994, which includes computing the OR function from noisy queries, and computing the MAX, SEARCH and SORT functions from noisy pairwise comparisons. For $K$ given elements, the goal is to correctly recover the desired function with probability at least $1-δ$ when the outcome of each query is flipped with probability $p$. We consider both the adaptive sampling setting where each query can be adaptively designed based on past outcomes, and the non-adaptive sampling setting where the query cannot depend on past outcomes. The prior work provides tight bounds on the worst-case query complexity in terms of the dependence on $K$. However, the upper and lower bounds do not match in terms of the dependence on $δ$ and $p$. We improve the lower bounds for all the four functions under both adaptive and non-adaptive query models. Most of our lower bounds match the upper bounds up to constant factors when either $p$ or $δ$ is bounded away from $0$, while the ratio between the best prior upper and lower bounds goes to infinity when $p\rightarrow 0$ or $p\rightarrow 1/2$. On the other hand, we also provide matching upper and lower bounds for the number of queries in expectation, improving both the upper and lower bounds for the variable-length query model.
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 | 0.031 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.060 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".