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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear probing continues to be one of the best practical hashing algorithms due to its good average performance, efficiency, and simplicity of implementation. However, the worst-case performance of linear probing seems to degrade with high load factors due to a primary-clustering tendency of one collision to cause more nearby collisions. It is known that the maximum cluster size produced by linear probing, and hence the length of the longest probe sequence needed to insert or search for a key in a hash table of size n, is Ω(logn), in probability. In this article, we introduce linear probing hashing schemes that employ two linear probe sequences to find empty cells for the keys. Our results show that two-way linear probing is a promising alternative to linear probing for hash tables. We show that two-way linear probing has an asymptotically almost surely O(loglogn) maximum cluster size when the load factor is constant. Matching lower bounds on the maximum cluster size produced by any two-way linear probing algorithm are obtained as well. Our analysis is based on a novel approach that uses the multiple-choice paradigm and witness trees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it