MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396680742 · doi:10.1109/jsait.2024.3396787

Noisy Computing of the OR and MAX Functions

2024· article· en· W4396680742 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivergence (linguistics)Pairwise comparisonMathematicsFunction (biology)ComputationCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsProbability distributionKullback–Leibler divergenceProbability of errorDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of computing a function of n variables using noisy queries, where each query is incorrect with some fixed and known probability p(0,1/2). Specifically, we consider the computation of the OR function of n bits (where queries correspond to noisy readings of the bits) and the MAX function of n real numbers (where queries correspond to noisy pairwise comparisons). We show that an expected number of queries of (1±o(1))nlog1/δDKL(p||1-p) is both sufficient and necessary to compute both functions with a vanishing error probability δ=o(1), where DKL(p||1-p) denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between Bern(p) and Bern(1-p) distributions. Compared to previous work, our results tighten the dependence on p in both the upper and lower bounds for the two functions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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