Low coordinate degree algorithms II: Categorical signals and generalized stochastic block models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study when low coordinate degree functions (LCDF) -- linear combinations of functions depending on small subsets of entries of a vector -- can test for the presence of categorical structure, including community structure and generalizations thereof, in high-dimensional data. This complements the first paper of this series, which studied the power of LCDF in testing for continuous structure like real-valued signals perturbed by additive noise. We apply the tools developed there to a general form of stochastic block model (SBM), where a population is assigned random labels and every $p$-tuple of the population generates an observation according to an arbitrary probability measure associated to the $p$ labels of its members. We show that the performance of LCDF admits a unified analysis for this class of models. As applications, we prove tight lower bounds against LCDF (and therefore also against low degree polynomials) for nearly arbitrary graph and regular hypergraph SBMs, always matching suitable generalizations of the Kesten-Stigum threshold. We also prove tight lower bounds for group synchronization and abelian group sumset problems under the "truth-or-Haar" noise model, and use our technical results to give an improved analysis of Gaussian multi-frequency group synchronization. In most of these models, for some parameter settings our lower bounds give new evidence for conjectural statistical-to-computational gaps. Finally, interpreting some of our findings, we propose a precise analogy between categorical and continuous signals: a general SBM as above behaves, in terms of the tradeoff between subexponential runtime cost of testing algorithms and the signal strength needed for a testing algorithm to succeed, like a spiked $p_*$-tensor model of a certain order $p_*$ that may be computed from the parameters of the SBM.
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 | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".