Parameters of two-prover-one-round game and the hardness of connectivity problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing parameters of Two-Prover-One-Round Game (2P1R) is an important task in PCPs literature as it would imply a smaller PCP with the same or stronger soundness. While this is a basic question in PCPs community, the connection between the parameters of PCPs and hardness of approximations is sometimes obscure to approximation algorithm community. In this paper, we investigate the connection between the parameters of 2P1R and the hardness of approximating the class of so-called connectivity problems, which includes as subclasses the survivable network design and (multi)cut problems. Based on recent development on 2P1R by Chan (STOC 2013) and several techniques in PCPs literature, we improve hardness results of some connectivity problems that are in the form kσ, for some (very) small constant σ > 0, to hardness results of the form kc for some explicit constant c, where k is a connectivity parameter. In addition, we show how to convert these hardness into hardness results of the form Dc', where D is the number of demand pairs (or the number of terminals).
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 | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".