Fractional Certificates for Bounded Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A folklore conjecture in quantum computing is that the acceptance probability of a quantum query algorithm can be approximated by a classical decision tree, with only a polynomial increase in the number of queries. Motivated by this conjecture, Aaronson and Ambainis (Theory of Computing, 2014) conjectured that this should hold more generally for any bounded function computed by a low degree polynomial. In this work we prove two new results towards establishing this conjecture: first, that any such polynomial has a small fractional certificate complexity; and second, that many inputs have a small sensitive block. We show that these would imply the Aaronson and Ambainis conjecture, assuming a conjectured extension of Talagrand’s concentration inequality. On the technical side, many classical techniques used in the analysis of Boolean functions seem to fail when applied to bounded functions. Here, we develop a new technique, based on a mix of combinatorics, analysis and geometry, and which in part extends a recent technique of Knop et al. (STOC 2021) to bounded functions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".