On Closure Properties of Read-Once Oblivious Algebraic Branching Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the closure properties of read-once oblivious Algebraic Branching Programs (roABPs) under various natural algebraic operations and prove the following. - Non-closure under factoring: There is a sequence of explicit polynomials (f_n(x₁,…, x_n))_n that have poly(n)-sized roABPs such that some irreducible factor of f_n requires roABPs of superpolynomial size in any order. - Non-closure under powering: There is a sequence of polynomials (f_n(x₁,…, x_n))_n with poly(n)-sized roABPs such that any super-constant power of f_n does not have roABPs of polynomial size in any order (and f_nⁿ requires exponential size in any order). - Non-closure under symmetric operations: There are symmetric polynomials (f_n(e₁,…, e_n))_n that have roABPs of polynomial size such that f_n(x₁,…, x_n) do not have roABPs of subexponential size. (Here, e₁,…, e_n denote the elementary symmetric polynomials in n variables.) These results should be viewed in light of known results on models such as algebraic circuits, (general) algebraic branching programs, formulas and constant-depth circuits, all of which are known to be closed under these operations. To prove non-closure under factoring, we construct hard polynomials based on expander graphs using gadgets that lift their hardness from sparse polynomials to roABPs. For symmetric compositions, we show that the circulant polynomial requires roABPs of exponential size in every variable order.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".