MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558278838 · doi:10.1145/3095799

An Average-Case Depth Hierarchy Theorem for Boolean Circuits

2017· article· en· W1558278838 on OpenAlexafffund
Johan Håstad, Benjamin Rossman, Rocco A. Servedio, Li-Yang Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsHierarchyConjectureBoolean functionDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsConverseBounded functionBoolean circuitRandom variablePolynomialStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove an average-case depth hierarchy theorem for Boolean circuits over the standard basis of AND, OR, and NOT gates. Our hierarchy theorem says that for every d ≥ 2, there is an explicit n -variable Boolean function f , computed by a linear-size depth- d formula, which is such that any depth-( d −1) circuit that agrees with f on (1/2 + o n (1)) fraction of all inputs must have size exp( n Ω (1/d) ). This answers an open question posed by Håstad in his Ph.D. thesis (Håstad 1986b). Our average-case depth hierarchy theorem implies that the polynomial hierarchy is infinite relative to a random oracle with probability 1, confirming a conjecture of Håstad (1986a), Cai (1986), and Babai (1987). We also use our result to show that there is no “approximate converse” to the results of Linial, Mansour, Nisan (Linial et al. 1993) and (Boppana 1997) on the total influence of bounded-depth circuits. A key ingredient in our proof is a notion of random projections which generalize random restrictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.014
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the ACMSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207