MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392011685 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.11118

Tic-Tac-Toe on Designs

2024· preprint· en· W4392011685 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFerroelectric and Negative Capacitance Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesMount Allison University
KeywordsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider playing the game of Tic-Tac-Toe on block designs BIBD($v, k, λ$) and transversal designs TD($k, n$). Players take turns choosing points and the first player to complete a block wins the game. We show that triple systems, BIBD($v, 3, λ$), are a first player win if and only if $v \geq 5$. Further, we show that for $k = 2, 3$, TD($k, n$) is a first player win if and only if $n \geq k$. We also consider a weak version of the game, called Maker-Breaker, in which the second player wins if they can stop the first player from winning. In this case, we adapt known bounds for when either the first or second player can win on BIBD($v, k, 1$) and TD($k, n$), and show that for Maker-Breaker, BIBD($v, 4, 1$) is a first player win if and only if $v \geq 16$. We show that TD($4, 4$) is a second player win, and so the second player can force a draw in the regular game by playing the same strategy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.092 · 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