MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137777810 · doi:10.1109/lics.2001.932495

A second-order system for polytime reasoning using Gradel's theorem

2002· article· en· W2137777810 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Cook, A. Kolokova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounded functionOrder (exchange)PolynomialSecond-order logicPolynomial hierarchyMathematicsFunction (biology)Reverse mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCorollaryClass (philosophy)Time complexityCombinatoricsAlgebra over a fieldComputer sciencePure mathematicsDescription logicAxiomArtificial intelligenceHigher-order logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a second-order system V/sub 1/-Horn of bounded arithmetic formalizing polynomial-time reasoning, based on Gradel's (1992) second-order Horn characterization of P. Our system has comprehension over P predicates (defined by Gradel's second-order Horn formulas), and only finitely, many function symbols. Other systems of polynomial-time reasoning either allow induction on NP predicates (such as Buss's (1986) S/sub 2//sup 1/ or the second-order V/sub 1//sup 1/), and hence are more powerful than our system (assuming the polynomial hierarchy does not collapse), or use Cobham's theorem to introduce function symbols for all polynomial-time functions (such as Cook's PV and Zambella's P-def). We prove that our system is equivalent to QPV and Zambella's (1996) P-def. Using our techniques, we also show that V/sub 1/-Horn is finitely, axiomatizable, and, as a corollary, that the class of /spl forall//spl Sigma//sub 1//sup b/ consequences of S/sub 2//sup 1/ is finitely axiomatizable as well, thus answering an open question.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207