MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379983127 · doi:10.32920/23459144

Expressibility Of Constraint Satisfaction Problems In Extensions Of First-Order Logic

2023· preprint· en· W4379983127 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksander Trajcevski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint satisfaction problemMathematicsIdempotenceClass (philosophy)Descriptive complexity theoryOrder (exchange)Discrete mathematicsTime complexityPolynomialConstraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfactionAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>A fundamental open problem in finite model theory and, specifically, descriptive complexity is the question whether there exists a logic which characterizes solvability of algorithmic decision polynomial time on the class of finite relational structures. A prominent candidate is the logic of Choiceless Polynomial Time (CPT) (optionally counting), a strict extension of the first-order logic. The expressibility problem for properties of finite relational structures in CPT (or CPT+C) is intrinsically hard, but CPT can be replaced by a more standard model-theoretic construction.</p> <p>We show that constraint satisfaction problems over Maltsev templates can be expressed in the logic PIL+H. Furthermore, we show that the algorithm for Maltsev templates also solves said instances of constraint satisfaction problems over finite, idempotent Taylor algebras. This proves that for every finite, idempotent algebra A, the problem CSP(A) is either NP-complete or its solvability can be defined in the logic PIL+H.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207