Sensitive Instances of the Constraint Satisfaction Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the impact of modifying the constraining relations of a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) instance, with a fixed template, on the set of solutions of the instance. More precisely we investigate sensitive instances: an instance of the CSP is called sensitive, if removing any tuple from any constraining relation invalidates some solution of the instance. Equivalently, one could require that every tuple from any one of its constraints extends to a solution of the instance. Clearly, any non-trivial template has instances which are not sensitive. Therefore we follow the direction proposed (in the context of strict width) by Feder and Vardi (SICOMP 1999) and require that only the instances produced by a local consistency checking algorithm are sensitive. In the language of the algebraic approach to the CSP we show that a finite idempotent algebra $\mathbf{A}$ has a $k+2$ variable near unanimity term operation if and only if any instance that results from running the $(k, k+1)$-consistency algorithm on an instance over $\mathbf{A}^2$ is sensitive. A version of our result, without idempotency but with the sensitivity condition holding in a variety of algebras, settles a question posed by G. Bergman about systems of projections of algebras that arise from some subalgebra of a finite product of algebras. Our results hold for infinite (albeit in the case of $\mathbf{A}$ idempotent) algebras as well and exhibit a surprising similarity to the strict width $k$ condition proposed by Feder and Vardi. Both conditions can be characterized by the existence of a near unanimity operation, but the arities of the operations differ by 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".