MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929118331 · doi:10.4230/lipics.ccc.2023.12

Improved Learning from Kolmogorov Complexity

2023· article· en· W6929118331 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKolmogorov complexityBoolean functionString (physics)Probably approximately correct learningFunction (biology)Circuit complexityRelaxation (psychology)Boolean circuit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carmosino, Impagliazzo, Kabanets, and Kolokolova (CCC, 2016) showed that the existence of natural properties in the sense of Razborov and Rudich (JCSS, 1997) implies PAC learning algorithms in the sense of Valiant (Comm. ACM, 1984), for boolean functions in P/poly, under the uniform distribution and with membership queries. It is still an open problem to get from natural properties learning algorithms that do not rely on membership queries but rather use randomly drawn labeled examples. Natural properties may be understood as an average-case version of MCSP, the problem of deciding the minimum size of a circuit computing a given truth-table. Problems related to MCSP include those concerning time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity. MKTP, for example, asks for the KT-complexity of a given string. KT-complexity is a relaxation of circuit size, as it does away with the requirement that a short description of a string be interpreted as a boolean circuit. In this work, under assumptions of MKTP and the related problem MK^tP being easy on average, we get learning algorithms for boolean functions in P/poly that - work over any distribution D samplable by a family of polynomial-size circuits (given explicitly in the case of MKTP), - only use randomly drawn labeled examples from D, and - are agnostic (do not require the target function to belong to the hypothesis class). Our results build upon the recent work of Hirahara and Nanashima (FOCS, 2021) who showed similar learning consequences but under a stronger assumption that NP is easy on average.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207