On the Complexity of Succinct Zero-Sum Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the complexity of solving succinct zero-sum games, i.e., the games whose payoff matrix M is given implicitly by a Boolean circuit C such that M(i,j) = C(i,j). We complement the known EXP-hardness of computing the exact value of a succinct zero-sum game by several results on approximating the value. (1) We prove that approximating the value of a succinct zero-sum game to within an additive error is complete for the class promise- $$S^{p}_{2}$$ , the “promise” version of $$S^{p}_{2}$$ . To the best of our knowledge, it is the first natural problem shown complete for this class. (2) We describe a ZPP NP algorithm for constructing approximately optimal strategies, and hence for approximating the value, of a given succinct zero-sum game. As a corollary, we obtain, in a uniform fashion, several complexity-theoretic results, e.g., a ZPP NP algorithm for learning circuits for SAT (Bshouty et al., JCSS, 1996) and a recent result by Cai (JCSS, 2007) that $$S^{p}_{2} \subseteq$$ ZPP NP . (3) We observe that approximating the value of a succinct zero-sum game to within a multiplicative factor is in PSPACE, and that it cannot be in promise- $$S^{p}_{2}$$ unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. Thus, under a reasonable complexity-theoretic assumption, multiplicative-factor approximation of succinct zero-sum games is strictly harder than additive-error approximation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".