On circular external difference families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circular external difference families (CEDFs) are a recently-introduced variation of external difference families (EDFs) with applications to non-malleable threshold schemes: a $(v,m,\ell,1)$-CEDF is an $m$-sequence $(A_0, \ldots, A_{m-1})$ of $\ell$-subsets of an additive group $G$ of order $v$ such that $G\setminus\{0\}$ equals the multiset of all differences $a-a'$, with $(a,a')\in A_{i+1}\times A_{i}$ for some $i \in \mathbb{Z}_m$. When $G$ is the cyclic group, we speak of a cyclic CEDF. The existence of cyclic $(v,m,\ell,1)$-CEDFs is well understood when $m$ is even, while nonexistence is known when both $m$ and $\ell$ are odd. However, the case where $m$ is odd and $\ell$ is even has only been resolved in a few special cases. In this paper, we address this gap by constructing cyclic $(v,m,\ell,1)$-CEDFs for any odd $m>1$ when $\ell=2$, and for any even $\ell \ge 2$ when $m=3$. Notably, the latter result relies on the existence of a suitable tiling of the multiplicative semigroup of $\mathbb{Z}_v\setminus\{0\}$. Moreover, noting that every $(v,3,\ell,1)$-CEDF produces a $(v,3,\ell,2)$-EDF, we completely solve the existence problem for $(3\ell^2+1,3,\ell,2)$-EDFs over an abelian group. Our approach is based on representing the blocks as arithmetic progressions and analyzing their step patterns. We present two different ways to construct cyclic $(v,m,2,1)$-CEDFs for every odd $m>1$; their step patterns show that the resulting CEDFs are inequivalent. Many additional inequivalent CEDFs are obtained by translating suitable subsets within the CEDF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".