Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of approximating fixed-predicate constraint satisfaction problems (MAX $k$-CSP$q$($P$)), where the variables take values from $[q]=\{0,1,\ldots,q-1\}$, and each constraint is on $k$ variables and is defined by a fixed $k$-ary predicate $P$. Familiar problems like MAX $3$-SAT and MAX-CUT belong to this category. Austrin and Mossel recently identified a general class of predicates $P$ for which MAX $k$-CSP$q$($P$) is hard to approximate. They study predicates $P:[q]^k\to \{0,1\}$ such that the set of assignments accepted by $P$ contains the support of a balanced pairwise independent distribution over the domain of the inputs. We refer to such predicates as promising. Austrin and Mossel show that for any promising predicate $P$, the problem MAX $k$-CSP$q$($P$) is Unique-Games hard to approximate better than the trivial approximation obtained by a random assignment. We give an unconditional analogue of this result in a restricted model of computation. We consider the hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations of MAX $k$-CSP$q$($P$) obtained by augmenting the canonical semidefinite relaxation with the Sherali-Adams hierarchy. We show that for any promising predicate $P$, the integrality gap remains the same as the approximation ratio achieved by a random assignment, even after $\Omega(n)$ levels of this hierarchy. We also introduce a new general set of techniques to define consistent “local distributions” over partial assignments to variables in the problem. Defining such distributions has often been the crux of proving lower bounds on integrality gaps for hierarchies like the ones we consider.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".