MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962895102 · doi:10.23638/lmcs-15(1:11)2019

The Subpower Membership Problem for Finite Algebras with Cube Terms

2019· article· en· W2962895102 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Mayr, Ágnes Szendrei, Andreĭ A. Bulatov

Bibliographic record

VenueCU Scholar (University of Colorado Boulder) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCube (algebra)Algebra over a fieldMathematicsPure mathematicsComputer scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subalgebra membership problem is the problem of deciding if a given element belongs to an algebra given by a set of generators. This is one of the best established computational problems in algebra. We consider a variant of this problem, which is motivated by recent progress in the Constraint Satisfaction Problem, and is often referred to as the Subpower Membership Problem (SMP). In the SMP we are given a set of tuples in a direct product of algebras from a fixed finite set $\mathcal{K}$ of finite algebras, and are asked whether or not a given tuple belongs to the subalgebra of the direct product generated by a given set. Our main result is that the subpower membership problem SMP($\mathcal{K}$) is in P if $\mathcal{K}$ is a finite set of finite algebras with a cube term, provided $\mathcal{K}$ is contained in a residually small variety. We also prove that for any finite set of finite algebras $\mathcal{K}$ in a variety with a cube term, each one of the problems SMP($\mathcal{K}$), SMP($\mathbb{HS} \mathcal{K}$), and finding compact representations for subpowers in $\mathcal{K}$, is polynomial time reducible to any of the others, and the first two lie in NP.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCU Scholar (University of Colorado Boulder)Same topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207