The Complexity of Promise SAT on Non-Boolean Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While 3-SAT is NP-hard, 2-SAT is solvable in polynomial time. Austrin et al. [SICOMP’17] proved a result known as “(2+ɛ)-SAT is NP-hard.” They showed that the problem of distinguishing k -CNF formulas that are g -satisfiable (i.e., some assignment satisfies at least g literals in every clause) from those that are not even 1-satisfiable is NP-hard if g/k < 1/2 and is in P otherwise. We study a generalisation of SAT on arbitrary finite domains, with clauses that are disjunctions of unary constraints, and establish analogous behaviour. Thus, we give a dichotomy for a natural fragment of promise constraint satisfaction problems ( PCSPs ) on arbitrary finite domains. The hardness side is proved using the algebraic approach via a new general NP-hardness criterion on polymorphisms, which is based on a gap version of the Layered Label Cover problem. We show that previously used criteria are insufficient—the problem hence gives an interesting benchmark of algebraic techniques for proving hardness of approximation in problems such as PCSPs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".