MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963575846 · doi:10.5555/2627817.2627912

Frozen variables in random boolean constraint satisfaction problems

2013· article· en· W2963575846 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Molloy, Ricardo Restrepo

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint satisfaction problemConstraint (computer-aided design)HeuristicsCluster analysisConstraint satisfactionLocal consistencyMathematicsRandom variableAlgorithmComputer scienceHypergraphDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimizationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determine the exact freezing threshold, rf, for a family of models of random boolean constraint satisfaction problems, including NAE-SAT and hypergraph 2-colouring, when the constraint size is sufficiently large. If the constraint-density of a random CSP, F, in our family is greater than rf then for almost every solution of F, a linear number of variables are frozen, meaning that their colours cannot be changed by a sequence of alterations in which we change o(n) variables at a time, always switching to another solution. If the constraint-density is less than rf, then almost every solution has o(n) frozen variables.Freezing is a key part of the clustering phenomenon that is hypothesized by non-rigorous techniques from statistical physics. The understanding of clustering has led to the development of advanced heuristics such as Survey Propogation. It has been suggested that the freezing threshold is a precise algorithmic barrier: that for densities below rf the random CSPs can be solved using very simple algorithms, while for densities above rf one requires more sophisticated techniques in order to deal with frozen clusters.

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)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on Discrete AlgorithmsSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207