Sensitive instances of the constraint satisfaction problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the impact of modifying the constraining relations of a Constraint SatisfactionProblem (CSP) instance, with a fixed template, on the set of solutions of the instance. More preciselywe investigate sensitive instances: an instance of theCSPis called sensitive, if removing any tuplefrom any constraining relation invalidates some solution of the instance. Equivalently, one couldrequire 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 thedirection proposed (in the context of strict width) by Feder and Vardi in [13] and require that onlythe instances produced by a local consistency checking algorithm are sensitive. In the languageof the algebraic approach to theCSPwe show that a finite idempotent algebraAhas ak+ 2variable near unanimity term operation if and only if any instance that results from running the(k, k+ 1)-consistency algorithm on an instance overA2is sensitive.A version of our result, without idempotency but with the sensitivity condition holding in avariety of algebras, settles a question posed by G. Bergman about systems of projections of algebrasthat arise from some subalgebra of a finite product of algebras.Our results hold for infinite (albeit in the case ofAidempotent) algebras as well and exhibit asurprising similarity to the strict widthkcondition proposed by Feder and Vardi. Both conditionscan be characterized by the existence of a near unanimity operation, but the arities of the operationsdiffer by1.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".