Inapproximability of Matrix \(\boldsymbol{p \rightarrow q}\) Norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We study the problem of computing the [Formula: see text] norm of a matrix [Formula: see text], defined as [Formula: see text]. This problem generalizes the spectral norm of a matrix ([Formula: see text]) and the Grothendieck problem ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and has been widely studied in various regimes. When [Formula: see text], the problem exhibits a dichotomy: constant factor approximation algorithms are known if [Formula: see text], and the problem is hard to approximate within almost polynomial factors when [Formula: see text]. The regime when [Formula: see text], known as hypercontractive norms, is particularly significant for various applications but much less well understood. The case with [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] was studied by Barak et al. [ Proceedings of the 44 th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2012, pp. 307–326], who gave subexponential algorithms for a promise version of the problem (which captures small-set expansion) and also proved hardness of approximation results based on the exponential time hypothesis. However, no NP-hardness of approximation is known for these problems for any [Formula: see text]. We prove the first NP-hardness result (under randomized reductions) for approximating hypercontractive norms. We show that for any [Formula: see text] with [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] is hard to approximate within [Formula: see text] assuming [Formula: see text]. En route to the above result, we also prove almost tight results for the case when [Formula: see text] with [Formula: see text].
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".