Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discrete Algorithms A predicate P: {-1, 1}k →{0, 1} can be associated with a constraint satisfaction problem Max CSP(P). P is called ''approximation resistant'' if Max CSP(P) cannot be approximated better than the approximation obtained by choosing a random assignment, and ''approximable'' otherwise. This classification of predicates has proved to be an important and challenging open problem. Motivated by a recent result of Austrin and Mossel (Computational Complexity, 2009), we consider a natural subclass of predicates defined by signs of quadratic polynomials, including the special case of predicates defined by signs of linear forms, and supply algorithms to approximate them as follows. In the quadratic case we prove that every symmetric predicate is approximable. We introduce a new rounding algorithm for the standard semidefinite programming relaxation of Max CSP(P) for any predicate P: {-1, 1}k →{0, 1} and analyze its approximation ratio. Our rounding scheme operates by first manipulating the optimal SDP solution so that all the vectors are nearly perpendicular and then applying a form of hyperplane rounding to obtain an integral solution. The advantage of this method is that we are able to analyze the behaviour of a set of k rounded variables together as opposed to just a pair of rounded variables in most previous methods. In the linear case we prove that a predicate called ''Monarchy'' is approximable. This predicate is not amenable to our algorithm for the quadratic case, nor to other LP/SDP-based approaches we are aware of.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".