Computationally Limited Randomness.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The starting point of this work is the basic question of whether there exists a formal and meaningful way to limit the computational power that a time bounded randomized Turing Machine can employ on its randomness. We attack this question using a fascinating connection between space and time bounded machines given by Cook [Coo71]: a Turing Machine S running in space s with access to an unbounded stack is equiv-alent to a Turing Machine T running in time 2O(s). We extend S with access to a read-only tape containing 2O(s) uniform random bits, and a usual error regime: one-sided or two-sided, and bounded or unbounded. We study the effect of placing a bound p on the number of passes S is allowed on its random tape. It follows from Cook’s results that: • If p = 1 (one-way access) and the error is one-sided unbounded, S is equivalent to deterministic T. • If p = ∞ (unrestricted access), S is equivalent to randomized T (with the same error). As our first two contributions, we completely resolve the case of unbounded error. We show that we cannot meaningfully interpolate between deterministic and randomized T by increasing p: • If p = 1 and the error is two-sided unbounded, S is still equivalent to deterministic T.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".