Testing and Learning Convex Sets in the Ternary Hypercube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problems of testing and learning high-dimensional discrete convex sets. The simplest high-dimensional discrete domain where convexity is a non-trivial property is the ternary hypercube, {-1,0,1}ⁿ. The goal of this work is to understand structural combinatorial properties of convex sets in this domain and to determine the complexity of the testing and learning problems. We obtain the following results. Structural: We prove nearly tight bounds on the edge boundary of convex sets in {0,±1}ⁿ, showing that the maximum edge boundary of a convex set is Õ(n^{3/4})⋅3ⁿ, or equivalently that every convex set has influence Õ(n^{3/4}) and a convex set exists with influence Ω(n^{3/4}). Learning and sample-based testing: We prove upper and lower bounds of 3^{Õ(n^{3/4})} and 3^{Ω(√n)} for the task of learning convex sets under the uniform distribution from random examples. The analysis of the learning algorithm relies on our upper bound on the influence. Both the upper and lower bound also hold for the problem of sample-based testing with two-sided error. For sample-based testing with one-sided error we show that the sample-complexity is 3^{Θ(n)}. Testing with queries: We prove nearly matching upper and lower bounds of 3^{Θ̃(√n)} for one-sided error testing of convex sets with non-adaptive queries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".