Learning Algorithms from Natural Proofs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on Hastad's (1986) circuit lower bounds, Linial, Mansour, and Nisan (1993) gave a quasipolytime learning algorithm for AC^0 (constant-depth circuits with AND, OR, and NOT gates), in the PAC model over the uniform distribution. It was an open question to get a learning algorithm (of any kind) for the class of AC^0[p] circuits (constant-depth, with AND, OR, NOT, and MOD_p gates for a prime p). Our main result is a quasipolytime learning algorithm for AC^0[p] in the PAC model over the uniform distribution with membership queries. This algorithm is an application of a general connection we show to hold between natural proofs (in the sense of Razborov and Rudich (1997)) and learning algorithms. We argue that a natural proof of a circuit lower bound against any (sufficiently powerful) circuit class yields a learning algorithm for the same circuit class. As the lower bounds against AC^0[p] by Razborov (1987) and Smolensky (1987) are natural, we obtain our learning algorithm for AC^0[p].
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".