Finer-Grained Reductions in Fine-Grained Hardness of Approximation
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 investigate the relation between $δ$ and $ε$ required for obtaining a $(1+δ)$-approximation in time $N^{2-ε}$ for closest pair problems under various distance metrics, and for other related problems in fine-grained complexity. Specifically, our main result shows that if it is impossible to (exactly) solve the (bichromatic) inner product (IP) problem for vectors of dimension $c \log N$ in time $N^{2-ε}$, then there is no $(1+δ)$-approximation algorithm for (bichromatic) Euclidean Closest Pair running in time $N^{2-2ε}$, where $δ\approx (ε/c)^2$ (where $\approx$ hides $\polylog$ factors). This improves on the prior result due to Chen and Williams (SODA 2019) which gave a smaller polynomial dependence of $δ$ on $ε$, on the order of $δ\approx (ε/c)^6$. Our result implies in turn that no $(1+δ)$-approximation algorithm exists for Euclidean closest pair for $δ\approx ε^4$, unless an algorithmic improvement for IP is obtained. This in turn is very close to the approximation guarantee of $δ\approx ε^3$ for Euclidean closest pair, given by the best known algorithm of Almam, Chan, and Williams (FOCS 2016). By known reductions, a similar result follows for a host of other related problems in fine-grained hardness of approximation. Our reduction combines the hardness of approximation framework of Chen and Williams, together with an MA communication protocol for IP over a small alphabet, that is inspired by the MA protocol of Chen (Theory of Computing, 2020).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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