MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132910148 · doi:10.1109/sct.1989.41812

On the theory of average case complexity

2003· article· en· W2132910148 on OpenAlexaff
Shalev Ben-David, Benny Chor, Oded Goldreich, Michael Luby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplexity classNondeterministic algorithmTime complexityNPMathematicsComputational complexity theoryStructural complexity theoryEquivalence (formal languages)PHAverage-case complexityPSPACEExponential functionPolynomial hierarchyHierarchyDiscrete mathematicsDescriptive complexity theoryTime hierarchy theoremCounting problemContext (archaeology)Quantum complexity theoryAlgorithmTuring machineComputation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given, as follows. The authors take the next step in developing the theory of average case complexity initiated by L.A. Levin. Previous work has focused on the existence of complete problems. The present authors widen the scope to other basic questions in computational complexity. Their results include: (1) the equivalence of search and decision problems in the context of average case complexity; (2) an initial analysis of the structure of distributional-NP under reductions which preserve average polynomial-time; (3) a proof that if all distributional-NP is in average polynomial-time then nondeterministic exponential-time equals deterministic exponential time (i.e. a collapse in the worst-case hierarchy); and (4) definitions and basic theorems regarding other complexity classes such as average log space.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.015
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207