MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987960037

Variants of Pseudo-deterministic Algorithms and Duality in TFNP

2023· dissertation· en· W6987960037 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized algorithmBounded functionDeterministic algorithmQuantum algorithmVerifiable secret sharingRelaxation (psychology)Duality (order theory)Search algorithmPerspective (graphical)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new notion of ``faux-deterministic'' algorithms for search problems in query complexity. Roughly, for a search problem $\\cS$, a faux-deterministic algorithm is a probability distribution $\\mathcal{A}$ over deterministic algorithms $A\\in \\mathcal{A}$ such that no computationally bounded adversary making black-box queries to a sampled algorithm $A\\sim \\mathcal{A}$ can find an input $x$ on which $A$ fails to solve $\\cS$ ($(x, A(x))\\notin \\cS$). Faux-deterministic algorithms are a relaxation of \\emph{pseudo-deterministic} algorithms, which are randomized algorithms with the guarantee that for any given input $x$, the algorithm outputs a unique output $y_x$ with high probability. Pseudo-deterministic algorithms are statistically indistinguishable from deterministic algorithms, while faux-deterministic algorithms relax this statistical indistinguishability to computational indistinguishability. 
\nWe prove that in the query model, every verifiable search problem that has a randomized algorithm also has a faux-deterministic algorithm. By considering the pseudo-deterministic lower bound of Goldwasser et al. \\cite{goldwasser_et_al:LIPIcs.CCC.2021.36}, we immediately prove an exponential gap between pseudo-deterministic and faux-deterministic complexities in query complexity. We additionally show that our faux-deterministic algorithm is also secure against quantum adversaries that can make black-box queries in superposition.
\nWe highlight two reasons to study faux-deterministic algorithms. First, for practical purposes, one can use a faux-deterministic algorithm instead of pseudo-deterministic algorithms in most cases where the latter is required. Second, since efficient faux-deterministic algorithms exist even when pseudo-deterministic ones do not, their existence demonstrates a barrier to proving pseudo-deterministic lower bounds: Lower bounds on pseudo-determinism must distinguish pseudo-determinism from faux-determinism.
\nFinally, changing our perspective to the adversaries' viewpoint, we introduce a notion of ``dual problem'' $\\cS^{*}$ for search problems $\\cS$. In the dual problem $\\cS^*$, the input is an algorithm $A$ purporting to solve $\\cS$, and our goal is to find an adverse input $x$ on which $A$ fails to solve $\\cS$. We discuss several properties in the query and Turing machine model that show the new problem $\\cS^*$ is analogous to a dual for $\\cS$.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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