MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598457899 · doi:10.1145/2540088

Graph Isomorphism is Not AC0-Reducible to Group Isomorphism

2013· article· en· W1598457899 on OpenAlexafffund
Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Jacobo Torán, Fabian Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computation Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNondeterministic algorithmUpper and lower boundsIsomorphism (crystallography)MathematicsGraph isomorphismQuasigroupCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsBounded functionGroup (periodic table)Group isomorphismParity (physics)GraphAutomorphismAutomorphism groupLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We give a new upper bound for the Group and Quasigroup Isomorphism problems when the input structures are given explicitly by multiplication tables. We show that these problems can be computed by polynomial size nondeterministic circuits of unbounded fan-in with O (log log n ) depth and O (log 2 n ) nondeterministic bits, where n is the number of group elements. This improves the existing upper bound for the problems. In the previous bound the circuits have bounded fan-in but depth O (log 2 n ) and also O (log 2 n ) nondeterministic bits. We then prove that the kind of circuits from our upper bound cannot compute the Parity function. Since Parity is AC 0 -reducible to Graph Isomorphism, this implies that Graph Isomorphism is strictly harder than Group or Quasigroup Isomorphism under the ordering defined by AC 0 reductions. We extend this result to the stronger ACC 0 [ p ] reduction and its randomized version.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
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

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computation TheorySame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207