MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185716868 · doi:10.4086/toc.2012.v008a012

[no title]

2012· article· en· W2185716868 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Siavosh Benabbas, Konstantinos Georgiou, Avner Magen, Madhur Tulsiani

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory of Computing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsPredicate (mathematical logic)Constraint satisfaction problemPairwise independenceDiscrete mathematicsHierarchyPairwise comparisonSemidefinite programmingRandom variableOmegaMathematical optimizationMultivariate random variableSum of normally distributed random variablesProbabilistic logicComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory of ComputingSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207