On Pigeonhole Principles and Ramsey in TFNP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that the TFNP problem Ramsey is not black-box reducible to Pigeon, refuting a conjecture of Goldberg and Papadimitriou in the black-box setting. We prove this by giving reductions to Ramsey from a new family of TFNP problems that correspond to generalized versions of the pigeonhole principle, and then proving that these generalized versions cannot be reduced to Pigeon. Formally, we define$t$-PPP as the class of total NP-search problems reducible to finding a$t$-collision in a mapping from$(t-1) N + 1$pigeons to$N$holes. These classes are closely related to multi-collision resistant hash functions in cryptography. We show that the generalized pigeonhole classes form a hierarchy as$t$increases, and also give a natural condition on the parameters$t_{1}, t_{2}$that captures exactly when$t_{1}$-PPP and$t_2$-PPP collapse in the black-box setting. Finally, we prove other inclusion and separation results between these generalized Pigeon problems and other previously studied TFNP subclasses, such as PLS, PPA, and PLC. Our separation results rely on new lower bounds in propositional proof complexity based on pseudoexpectation operators, which may be of independent interest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".