MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389815267 · doi:10.4171/icm2022/208

Communication and information complexity

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389815267 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark Braverman

Bibliographic record

VenueEMS Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoJohn Templeton FoundationPrinceton UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication complexity is an area of computational complexity theory that studies the amount of communication required to complete a computational task. Communication complexity gives us some of the most successful techniques for proving impossibility results for computational tasks. Information complexity connects communication complexity with Shannon’s classical information theory. It treats information revealed or transmitted as the resource to be conserved. On the one hand, information complexity leads to extensions of classical information and coding theory to interactive scenarios. On the other hand, it provides us with tools to answer open questions about communication complexity and related areas. This note gives an overview of communication complexity and some recent developments in two-party information complexity and applications. The note is based on a talk given by the author at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 2022. It expands on some of the themes from the talk. It also provides references that were omitted during the talk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.295
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEMS Press eBooksSame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207