Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by the pervasiveness of strong inapproximability results for Max-CSPs, we introduce a relaxed notion of an approximate solution of a Max-CSP. In this relaxed version, loosely speaking, the algorithm is allowed to replace the constraints of an instance by some other (possibly real-valued) constraints, and then only needs to satisfy as many of the new constraints as possible. To be more precise, we introduce the following notion of a predicate P being useful for a (real-valued) objective Q : given an almost satisfiable Max- P instance, there is an algorithm that beats a random assignment on the corresponding Max- Q instance applied to the same sets of literals. The standard notion of a nontrivial approximation algorithm for a Max-CSP with predicate P is exactly the same as saying that P is useful for P itself. We say that P is useless if it is not useful for any Q . This turns out to be equivalent to the following pseudo-randomness property: given an almost satisfiable instance of Max- P , it is hard to find an assignment such that the induced distribution on k -bit strings defined by the instance is not essentially uniform. Under the unique games conjecture , we give a complete and simple characterization of useful Max-CSPs defined by a predicate: such a Max-CSP is useless if and only if there is a pairwise independent distribution supported on the satisfying assignments of the predicate. It is natural to also consider the case when no negations are allowed in the CSP instance, and we derive a similar complete characterization (under the UGC) there as well. Finally, we also include some results and examples shedding additional light on the approximability of certain Max-CSPs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".