MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036465104 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.11713

Graphs of relational structures: restricted types

2020· preprint· en· W3036465104 on OpenAlexaff
Andreǐ A. Bulatov

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemilatticeMathematicsBounded functionAlgebraic structureConstraint satisfaction problemDiscrete mathematicsAffine transformationType (biology)CombinatoricsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The algebraic approach to the Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) uses high order symmetries of relational structures -- polymorphisms -- to study the complexity of the CSP. In this paper we further develop one of the methods the algebraic approach can be implemented, and apply it to some kinds of the CSP. This method was introduced in our LICS 2004 paper and involves the study of the local structure of finite algebras and relational structures. It associates with an algebra A or a relational structure S a graph, whose vertices are the elements of A (or S), the edges represent subsets of A such that the restriction of some term operation of A is `good' on the subset, that is, act as an operation of one of the 3 types: semilattice, majority, or affine. In this paper we use this theory and consider algebras with edges from a restricted set of types. We prove type restrictions are preserved under the standard algebraic constructions. Then we show that if the types edges in a relational structure are restricted, then the corresponding CSP can be solved in polynomial time by specific algorithms. In particular, we give a new, somewhat more intuitive proof of the Bounded Width Theorem: the CSP over algebra A has bounded width if and only if A does not contain affine edges. Actually, this result shows that bounded width implies width (2,3). Finally, we prove that algebras without semilattice edges have few subalgebras of powers, that is, the CSP over such algebras is also polynomial time. The methods and results obtained in this paper are important ingredients of the 2017 proof of the Dichotomy Conjecture by the author. The Dichotomy Conjecture was also proved independently by Zhuk.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.122 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207