MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966029787 · doi:10.4230/lipics.ccc.2019.25

Complexity Lower Bounds for Computing the Approximately-Commuting Operator Value of Non-Local Games to High Precision

2019· article· en· W2966029787 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Coudron, William Slofstra

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical proofGas meter proverOperator (biology)Upper and lower boundsSoundnessMathematicsCompleteness (order theory)Discrete mathematicsValue (mathematics)Class (philosophy)Complexity classCombinatoricsTime complexityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of approximating the commuting-operator value of a two-player non-local game. It is well-known that it is NP-complete to decide whether the classical value of a non-local game is 1 or 1- epsilon, promised that one of the two is the case. Furthermore, as long as epsilon is small enough, this result does not depend on the gap epsilon. In contrast, a recent result of Fitzsimons, Ji, Vidick, and Yuen shows that the complexity of computing the quantum value grows without bound as the gap epsilon decreases. In this paper, we show that this also holds for the commuting-operator value of a game. Specifically, in the language of multi-prover interactive proofs, we show that the power of MIP^{co}(2,1,1,s) (proofs with two provers, one round, completeness probability 1, soundness probability s, and commuting-operator strategies) can increase without bound as the gap 1-s gets arbitrarily small.
\nOur results also extend naturally in two ways, to perfect zero-knowledge protocols, and to lower bounds on the complexity of computing the approximately-commuting value of a game. Thus we get lower bounds on the complexity class PZK-MIP^{co}_{delta}(2,1,1,s) of perfect zero-knowledge multi-prover proofs with approximately-commuting operator strategies, as the gap 1-s gets arbitrarily small. While we do not know any computable time upper bound on the class MIP^{co}, a result of the first author and Vidick shows that for s = 1-1/poly(f(n)) and delta = 1/poly(f(n)), the class MIP^{co}_delta(2,1,1,s), with constant communication from the provers, is contained in TIME(exp(poly(f(n)))). We give a lower bound of coNTIME(f(n)) (ignoring constants inside the function) for this class, which is tight up to polynomial factors assuming the exponential time hypothesis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207