Existence and applications of finite-population samples that are exactly balanced
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Samples selected from finite populations can rarely be exactly balanced, as sample selection is an integer problem and the balancing equations are strict equalities. Selecting a balanced sample is not a problem limited to survey sampling. It also applies to design of experiments, clinical trials, causality, exact inference, graph theory and network analysis. Building on Jean-Claude Deville’s foundational work, we explore conditions under which exact solutions are achievable. We show that, if the constraint matrix is totally unimodular, then all solutions are exact. This condition is not necessary: exact solutions arise when the constraint matrix is not totally unimodular. An interesting example of exact balancing is when two stratifications overlap, of which the unbiased controlled rounding problem is a special case. With three stratifications, the problem is no longer exact. It is sometimes possible to make a problem exact by adding constraints. We establish a connection with the problem of selecting a sample uniformly among all possible exact samples, a question of interest for the generation of random graphs and for exact inference in logistic regression. Moreover, we establish a link with the theory of experimental designs by showing that the construction of balanced incomplete block designs is also a balanced sampling problem. The question of exact balance therefore has a wide range of practical applications and provides a link between very different fields.
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 | 0.031 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".