MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115887828 · doi:10.5287/ora-pzpyzzjrv

Promise constraint satisfaction problems

2022· dissertation· en· W7115887828 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnary operationConstraint satisfaction problemConstraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfactionAlgebraic numberCover (algebra)Boolean satisfiability problemBenchmark (surveying)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The promise constraint satisfaction problem (PCSP) is a recently introduced vast generalisation of the constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) that captures approximability of satisfiable instances. A PCSP instance comes with two forms of each constraint: a strict one and a weak one. Given the promise that a solution exists under the strict constraints, the task is to find a solution under the weak constraints. Austrin, Guruswami, and Hastad [SICOMP’17] showed that the problem of distinguishing k-CNF formulas that are g-satisfiable (some assignment satisfies at least g literals in every clause) from those that are not even 1-satisfiable is NP-hard if g/k < 1/2 and is in P otherwise. We study a generalisation of SAT on arbitrary finite domains, with clauses that are disjunctions of unary constraints, and establish analogous behaviour. Thus we give a dichotomy for a natural fragment of PCSPs on arbitrary finite domains. The hardness side is proved using the algebraic approach via a new general NP-hardness criterion on polymorphisms, which is based on a gap version of the Layered Label Cover problem. We show that previously used criteria are insufficient, and so this problem gives an interesting benchmark of algebraic techniques for proving hardness of approximation in problems such as PCSPs. Next we turn to non-symmetric PCSPs. While there now exist several dichotomy results for fragments of PCSPs, they all consider PCSPs that are symmetric in some way. 1-in-3-SAT and Not-All-Equal-3-SAT are classic examples of Boolean symmetric CSPs. While both problems are NP-hard, Brakensiek and Guruswami showed [SICOMP’21] that given a satisfiable instance of 1-in-3-SAT, one can efficiently find a solution to the corresponding instance of (weaker) Not-All-Equal-3-SAT. In other words, the PCSP template (1-in-3, NAE) is tractable. We study PCSP templates obtained from the Boolean template (t-in-k, NAE) by either adding tuples to t-in-k or removing tuples from NAE. For the former, we obtain an “algorithmic dichotomy” and classify all templates as either tractable or not solvable by one of the strongest known algorithms for PCSPs, the combined basic LP and affine IP relaxation of Brakensiek et al. [SICOMP’20]. For the latter, we classify all templates as either tractable or NP-hard. Finally, we investigate problems of the form PCSP(1-in-3, B) for B over an arbitrary finite domain. Barto, Battistelli, and Berg [STACS’21] almost completely classified such templates over domain size three, and suggested that over arbitrary domains, (1-in-3, NAE) and (1-in-3, C3) might be the only tractable templates, where C3 is a relation representing a 3-cycle. Through a connection to number theory, we exhibit an infinite family of tractable templates, of which (1-in-3, NAE) and (1-in-3, C3) are the simplest members. We conjecture that this family contains all tractable cases of PCSP(1-in-3, B), and we prove NP-hardness or non-solvability by BLP+AIP for certain PCSPs outside the family.

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)0.016
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207