Symmetric Datalog and Constraint Satisfaction Problems in Logspace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce symmetric Datalog, a syntactic restriction of linear Datalog and show that its expressive power is exactly that of restricted symmetric Krom monotone SNP. The deep result of Reingold [17] on the complexity of undirected connectivity suffices to show that symmetric Datalog queries can be evaluated in logarithmic space. We show that for a number of constraint languages Gamma, the complement of the constraint satisfaction problem CSP(Gamma) can be expressed in symmetric Datalog. In particular, we show that if CSP(Gamma) is first-order definable and Lambda is a finite subset of the relational clone generated by Gamma then notCSP(Lambda) is definable in symmetric Datalog. Over the two-element domain and under standard complexity-theoretic assumptions, expressibility of notCSP(Gamma) in symmetric Datalog corresponds exactly to the class of CSPs computable in logarithmic space. Finally, we describe a fairly general subclass of implicational (or 0/1/all) constraints for which the complement of the corresponding CSP is also definable in symmetric Datalog. Our results provide preliminary evidence that symmetric Datalog may be a unifying explanation for families of CSPs lying in L.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".