An improved protocol for ExactlyN with more than 3 players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ExactlyN problem in the number-on-forehead (NOF) communication setting asks $k$ players, each of whom can see every input but their own, if the $k$ input numbers add up to $N$. Introduced by Chandra, Furst and Lipton in 1983, ExactlyN is important for its role in understanding the strength of randomness in communication complexity with many players. It is also tightly connected to the field of combinatorics: its $k$-party NOF communication complexity is related to the size of the largest corner-free subset in $[N]^{k-1}$. In 2021, Linial and Shraibman gave more efficient protocols for ExactlyN for 3 players. As an immediate consequence, this also gave a new construction of larger corner-free subsets in $[N]^2$. Later that year Green gave a further refinement to their argument. These results represent the first improvements to the highest-order term for $k=3$ since the famous work of Behrend in 1946. In this paper we give a corresponding improvement to the highest-order term for all $k>3$, the first since Rankin in 1961. That is, we give a more efficient protocol for ExactlyN as well as larger corner-free sets in higher dimensions. Nearly all previous results in this line of research approached the problem from the combinatorics perspective, implicitly resulting in non-constructive protocols for ExactlyN. Approaching the problem from the communication complexity point of view and constructing explicit protocols for ExactlyN was key to the improvements in the $k=3$ setting. As a further contribution we provide explicit protocols for ExactlyN for any number of players which serves as a base for our improvement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".