MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953277693 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.4428

On Constraint Satisfaction Problems below P

2013· preprint· en· W2953277693 on OpenAlexaff
László Egri

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatalogConstraint satisfaction problemTreewidthBounded functionMathematicsDuality (order theory)Discrete mathematicsConstraint satisfactionNondeterministic algorithmCombinatoricsConjectureSimple (philosophy)Computer sciencePathwidthTheoretical computer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symmetric Datalog, a fragment of the logic programming language Datalog, is conjectured to capture all constraint satisfaction problems (CSP) in L. Therefore developing tools that help us understand whether or not a CSP can be defined in symmetric Datalog is an important task. It is widely known that a CSP is definable in Datalog and linear Datalog if and only if that CSP has bounded treewidth and bounded pathwidth duality, respectively. In the case of symmetric Datalog, Bulatov, Krokhin and Larose ask for such a duality (2008). We provide two such dualities, and give applications. In particular, we give a short and simple new proof of the result of Dalmau and Larose that "Maltsev + Datalog -> symmetric Datalog" (2008). In the second part of the paper, we provide some evidence for the conjecture of Dalmau (2002) that every CSP in NL is definable in linear Datalog. Our results also show that a wide class of CSPs-CSPs which do not have bounded pathwidth duality (e.g., the P-complete Horn-3Sat problem)-cannot be defined by any polynomial size family of monotone read-once nondeterministic branching programs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.124 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207