MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consequences of Randomized Reductions from SAT to Time-Bounded Kolmogorov Complexity

2024· article· en· W6929079456 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKolmogorov complexityRandomized algorithmConstant (computer programming)Reduction (mathematics)Time complexityComputational complexity theoryClass (philosophy)Running time

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central open question within meta-complexity is that of NP-hardness of problems such as MCSP and MK^{t}P. Despite a large body of work giving consequences of and barriers for NP-hardness of these problems under (restricted) deterministic reductions, very little is known in the setting of randomized reductions. In this work, we give consequences of randomized NP-hardness reductions for both approximating and exactly computing time-bounded and time-unbounded Kolmogorov complexity. In the setting of approximate K^{poly} complexity, our results are as follows. 1) Under a derandomization assumption, for any constant δ > 0, if approximating K^t complexity within n^{δ} additive error is hard for SAT under an honest randomized non-adaptive Turing reduction running in time polynomially less than t, then NP = coNP. 2) Under the same assumptions, the worst-case hardness of NP is equivalent to the existence of one-way functions. Item 1 above may be compared with a recent work of Saks and Santhanam [Michael E. Saks and Rahul Santhanam, 2022], which makes the same assumptions except with ω(log n) additive error, obtaining the conclusion NE = coNE. In the setting of exact K^{poly} complexity, where the barriers of Item 1 and [Michael E. Saks and Rahul Santhanam, 2022] do not apply, we show: 3) If computing K^t complexity is hard for SAT under reductions as in Item 1, then the average-case hardness of NP is equivalent to the existence of one-way functions. That is, "Pessiland" is excluded. Finally, we give consequences of NP-hardness of exact time-unbounded Kolmogorov complexity under randomized reductions. 4) If computing Kolmogorov complexity is hard for SAT under a randomized many-one reduction running in time t_R and with failure probability at most 1/(t_R)^16, then coNP is contained in non-interactive statistical zero-knowledge; thus NP ⊆ coAM. Also, the worst-case hardness of NP is equivalent to the existence of one-way functions. We further exploit the connection to NISZK along with a previous work of Allender et al. [Eric Allender et al., 2023] to show that hardness of K complexity under randomized many-one reductions is highly robust with respect to failure probability, approximation error, output length, and threshold parameter.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · 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