The Power of Filling in Balanced Allocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We introduce a new class of balanced allocation processes which are primarily characterized by “filling” underloaded bins. A prototypical example is the Packing process: At each round we only take one bin sample, and if the load is below the average load, then we place as many balls until the average load is reached; otherwise, we place only one ball. We prove that for any process in this class the gap between the maximum and average load is [Formula: see text] w.h.p. for any number of balls [Formula: see text]. For the Packing process, we also provide a matching lower bound. Additionally, we prove that the Packing process is sample efficient in the sense that the expected number of balls allocated per sample is strictly greater than one. Finally, we also demonstrate that the upper bound of [Formula: see text] on the gap can be extended to the Memory process studied by Mitzenmacher, Prabhakar, and Shah [43 rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2002, pp. 799–808].
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".