Query-To-Communication Lifting for BPP Using Inner Product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prove a new query-to-communication lifting for randomized protocols, with inner product as gadget. This allows us to use a much smaller gadget, leading to a more efficient lifting. Prior to this work, such a theorem was known only for deterministic protocols, due to Chattopadhyay et al. [Arkadev Chattopadhyay et al., 2017] and Wu et al. [Xiaodi Wu et al., 2017]. The only query-to-communication lifting result for randomized protocols, due to Göös, Pitassi and Watson [Mika Göös et al., 2017], used the much larger indexing gadget. Our proof also provides a unified treatment of randomized and deterministic lifting. Most existing proofs of deterministic lifting theorems use a measure of information known as thickness. In contrast, Göös, Pitassi and Watson [Mika Göös et al., 2017] used blockwise min-entropy as a measure of information. Our proof uses the blockwise min-entropy framework to prove lifting theorems in both settings in a unified way.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".