A New Minimax Theorem for Randomized Algorithms (Extended Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The celebrated minimax principle of Yao (1977) says that for any Boolean-valued function f with finite domain, there is a distribution μ over the domain of f such that computing f to error ε against inputs from μ is just as hard as computing f to error ε on worst-case inputs. Notably, however, the distribution μ depends on the target error level ε: the hard distribution which is tight for bounded error might be trivial to solve to small bias, and the hard distribution which is tight for a small bias level might be far from tight for bounded error levels. In this work, we introduce a new type of minimax theorem which can provide a hard distribution μ that works for all bias levels at once. We show that this works for randomized query complexity, randomized communication complexity, some randomized circuit models, quantum query and communication complexities, approximate polynomial degree, and approximate logrank. We also prove an improved version of Impagliazzo's hardcore lemma. Our proofs rely on two innovations over the classical approach of using Von Neumann's minimax theorem or linear programming duality. First, we use Sion's minimax theorem to prove a minimax theorem for ratios of bilinear functions representing the cost and score of algorithms. Second, we introduce a new way to analyze low-bias randomized algorithms by viewing them as “forecasting algorithms” evaluated by a certain proper scoring rule. The expected score of the forecasting version of a randomized algorithm appears to be a more fine-grained way of analyzing the bias of the algorithm. We show that such expected scores have many elegant mathematical properties: for example, they can be amplified linearly instead of quadratically. We anticipate forecasting algorithms will find use in future work in which a fine-grained analysis of small-bias algorithms is required.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".