On the Complexity of Succinct Zero-Sum Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it