MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280059905 · doi:10.4086/toc.2015.v011a001

[no title]

2015· article· en· W2280059905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory of Computing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsIndependent and identically distributed random variablesCompleteness (order theory)Discrete mathematicsBounded functionDistribution (mathematics)Pairwise independencePairwise comparisonJoint probability distributionUncorrelatedIndependence (probability theory)Random variableMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

$ \newcommand{\BCeP}{\mathsf{BC}_=\mathsf{P}} \newcommand{\SZK}{\mathsf{SZK}} \newcommand{\CeP}{\mathsf{C}_=\mathsf{P}} $ We consider the problems of deciding whether the joint distribution sampled by a given circuit has certain statistical properties such as being i.i.d., being exchangeable, being pairwise independent, having two coordinates with identical marginals, having two uncorrelated coordinates, and many other variants. We give a proof that simultaneously shows all these problems are $\CeP$-complete, by showing that the following promise problem (which is a restriction of all the above problems) is $\CeP$-complete: Given a circuit, distinguish the case where the output distribution is uniform and the case where every pair of coordinates is neither uncorrelated nor identically distributed. This completeness result holds even for samplers that are depth-$3$ circuits. We also consider circuits that are $d$-local, in the sense that each output bit depends on at most $d$ input bits. We give linear-time algorithms for deciding whether a $2$-local sampler's joint distribution is fully independent, and whether it is exchangeable. We also show that for general circuits, certain approximation versions of the problems of deciding full independence and exchangeability are $\SZK$-complete. We also introduce a bounded-error version of $\CeP$, which we call $\BCeP$, and we investigate its structural properties. An extended abstract of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), 2014.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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