Bounds on data limits for all-to-all comparison from combinatorial designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In situations where every item in a data set must be compared with every other item in the set, it may be desirable to store the data across a number of machines in such a way that any two data items are stored together on at least one machine. One way to evaluate the efficiency of such a distribution is by the largest fraction of the data it requires to be allocated to any one machine. The all-to-all comparison (ATAC) data limit formmachines is a measure of the minimum of this value across all possible such distributions. In this paper we further the study of ATAC data limits. We begin by investigating the data limits achievable using various classes of combinatorial designs. In particular, we examine the cases of transversal designs and projective Hjelmslev planes. We then observe relationships between data limits and the previously studied combinatorial parameters of fractional matching numbers and covering numbers. Finally, we prove a lower bound on the ATAC data limit that improves on one of Hall, Kelly and Tian, and examine the special cases where equality in this bound is possible.
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 | 0.021 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".