MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982393288 · doi:10.4230/lipics.ccc.2020.12

Search Problems in Algebraic Complexity, GCT, and Hardness of Generators for Invariant Rings

2020· article· en· W2982393288 on OpenAlexaff
Ankit Garg, Christian Ikenmeyer, Visu Makam, Rafael Oliveira, Michael Walter, Avi Wigderson

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInvariant (physics)Invariant theoryConjectureMathematicsComputational complexity theoryAlgebraic numberProof complexityPolynomial ringAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer sciencePolynomialPure mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical proof

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of computing succinct encodings of lists of generators for invariant rings for group actions. Mulmuley conjectured that there are always polynomial sized such encodings for invariant rings of SL_n(ℂ)-representations. We provide simple examples that disprove this conjecture (under standard complexity assumptions). We develop a general framework, denoted algebraic circuit search problems, that captures many important problems in algebraic complexity and computational invariant theory. This framework encompasses various proof systems in proof complexity and some of the central problems in invariant theory as exposed by the Geometric Complexity Theory (GCT) program, including the aforementioned problem of computing succinct encodings for generators for invariant rings.

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)0.021
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207