Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the action of a linear subspace $U$ of $\{0,1\}^n$ on the set of AC$^0$ formulas with inputs labeled by literals in the set $\{X_1,\overline X_1,\dots,X_n,\overline X_n\}$, where an element $u \in U$ acts on formulas by transposing the $i$th pair of literals for all $i \in [n]$ such that $u_i=1$. A formula is {\em $U$-invariant} if it is fixed by this action. For example, there is a well-known recursive construction of depth $d+1$ formulas of size $O(n{\cdot}2^{dn^{1/d}})$ computing the $n$-variable PARITY function; these formulas are easily seen to be $P$-invariant where $P$ is the subspace of even-weight elements of $\{0,1\}^n$. In this paper we establish a nearly matching $2^{d(n^{1/d}-1)}$ lower bound on the $P$-invariant depth $d+1$ formula size of PARITY. Quantitatively this improves the best known $\Omega(2^{\frac{1}{84}d(n^{1/d}-1)})$ lower bound for {\em unrestricted} depth $d+1$ formulas, while avoiding the use of the switching lemma. More generally, for any linear subspaces $U \subset V$, we show that if a Boolean function is $U$-invariant and non-constant over $V$, then its $U$-invariant depth $d+1$ formula size is at least $2^{d(m^{1/d}-1)}$ where $m$ is the minimum Hamming weight of a vector in $U^\bot \setminus V^\bot$.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".