The expressibility of functions on the Boolean domain, with applications to Counting CSPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important tool in the study of the complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) is the notion of a relational clone, which is the set of all relations expressible using primitive positive formulas over a particular set of base relations. Post’s lattice gives a complete classification of all Boolean relational clones, and this has been used to classify the computational difficulty of CSPs. Motivated by a desire to understand the computational complexity of (weighted) counting CSPs, we develop an analogous notion of functional clones and study the landscape of these clones. One of these clones is the collection of log-supermodular (lsm) functions, which turns out to play a significant role in classifying counting CSPs. In the conservative case (where all nonnegative unary functions are available), we show that there are no functional clones lying strictly between the clone of lsm functions and the total clone (containing all functions). Thus, any counting CSP that contains a single nontrivial non-lsm function is computationally as hard to approximate as any problem in #P. Furthermore, we show that any non-trivial functional clone (in a sense that will be made precise) contains the binary function “implies”. As a consequence, in the conservative case, all non-trivial counting CSPs are as hard to approximate as #BIS, the problem of counting independent sets in a bipartite graph. Given the complexity-theoretic results, it is natural to ask whether the “implies” clone is equivalent to the clone of lsm functions. We use the Möbius transform and the Fourier transform to show that these
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".