MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077948344 · doi:10.1017/s0013091514000455

Computational Complexity of Topological Invariants

2014· article· en· W2077948344 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Amann

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational complexity theoryTopological complexityReduction (mathematics)MathematicsSpace (punctuation)GraphTheoretical computer scienceCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmPure mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We answer the following question posed by Lechuga: given a simply connected space X with both H * ( X ; ℚ) and π * ( X ) ⊗ ℚ being finite dimensional, what is the computational complexity of an algorithm computing the cup length and the rational Lusternik—Schnirelmann category of X ? Basically, by a reduction from the decision problem of whether a given graph is k -colourable for k ≥ 3, we show that even stricter versions of the problems above are NP-hard.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical SocietySame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207