Bibliographic record
Abstract
1-in-3-SAT and Not-All-Equal-3-SAT are classic examples of Boolean symmetric (non-promise) constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). While both problems are NP-hard, Brakensiek and Guruswami showed [SICOMP'21] that given a satisfiable instance of 1-in-3-SAT one can find a solution to the corresponding instance of (weaker) Not-All-Equal-3-SAT. In other words, the promise CSP template (1-in-3,NAE) is tractable. Unlike previously established dichotomy results for fragments of promise CSPs (PCSPs), we focus on non-symmetric PCSPs. In particular, we study PCSP templates obtained from the Boolean template (t-in-k,NAE) by either adding tuples to t-in-k or removing tuples from NAE. For the former, we classify all templates as either tractable or not solvable by one of the strongest known algorithm for PCSPs, the combined basic LP and affine IP relaxation of Brakensiek, Guruswami, Wrochna, and Živný [SICOMP'20]. For the latter, we classify all templates as either tractable or NP-hard.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.026 |
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".