Computing with uncertainty and its implications to universality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that there exist computational problems that can be solved on a parallel computer, yet are impossible to be solved sequentially. Specifically, no general purpose sequential model of computation, such as the Turing machine or the random access machine, can simulate a large family of computations (e.g. solutions to certain real-time problems), each of which is capable of being carried out readily by a particular parallel computer. We extend the scope of such problems to the class of problems with uncertain time constraints. The first type of time constraints refers to uncertain time requirements on the input data, that is when and for how long are the input data available. The second type of time constraints refers to uncertain deadlines on when outputs are to be produced. Our main objective is to exhibit computational problems in which it is very difficult to find out (read ‘compute’) what to do and when to do it. Furthermore, problems with uncertain time constraints, as described here, prove once more that it is impossible to define a ‘universal computer’, that is a computer able to perform (through simulation or otherwise) all computations that are executable on other computers. Finally, one of the contributions of this paper is to promote the study of a topic, conspicuously absent to date from theoretical computer science, namely the role of physical time and physical space in computation. The focus of our work is to analyse the effect of external natural phenomena on the various components of a computational process, namely the input phase, the calculation phase (including the algorithm and the computing agents themselves) and the output phase.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it