Randomized Communication and Implicit Graph Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We initiate the focused study of constant-cost randomized communication, with emphasis on its connection to graph representations. We observe that constant-cost randomized communication problems are equivalent to hereditary (i.e. closed under taking induced subgraphs) graph classes which admit constant-size adjacency sketches and probabilistic universal graphs (PUGs), which are randomized versions of the well-studied adjacency labeling schemes and induced-universal graphs. This gives a new perspective on long-standing questions about the existence of these objects, including new methods of constructing adjacency labeling schemes. We ask three main questions about constant-cost communication, or equivalently, constant-size PUGs: (1) Are there any natural, non-trivial problems aside from Equality and k-Hamming Distance which have constant-cost communication? We provide a number of new examples, including deciding whether two vertices have path-distance at most k in a planar graph, and showing that constant-size PUGs are preserved by the Cartesian product operation. (2) What structures of a problem explain the existence or non-existence of a constant-cost protocol? We show that in many cases a Greater-Than subproblem is such a structure. (3) Is the Equality problem complete for constant-cost randomized communication? We show that it is not: there are constant-cost problems which do not reduce to Equality. 81 pages. This is the TheoretiCS journal version
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 | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".