No Shannon effect induced by And/Or trees
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
In view of the absence of the Shannon effect and Kozik’s result on the limiting distributions it seems reasonable that asymptotically almost all functions have polynomial complexity.
Context
Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "No Shannon effect induced by And/Or trees", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
NEW
Problem: Reconstructed conjecture (most natural in the paper’s context): for the limiting distribution on -variable Boolean functions induced by uniform random And/Or trees with variables and size , asymptotically almost every sampled function has polynomial And/Or-tree complexity. Formally, if is the minimum number of literal leaves in an And/Or tree computing , then there is a polynomial such that
The wording is ambiguous: under the uniform measure on all Boolean functions this is false by Shannon’s counting theorem. The reference to Kozik’s limiting distributions supports the limiting And/Or-tree interpretation above.
Result: The conjecture is true. In fact one may take .
Use the standard Catalan/Kesten local limit for uniform binary trees with leaves: as , the tree locally becomes an infinite spine, and at each spine vertex an independent finite critical Galton–Watson full binary tree is attached. The attached tree has size distribution
where is a Catalan number. Hence
At each spine vertex, independently, there is probability at least of an absorbing two-leaf side tree: either the side tree is and the spine connector is , or the side tree is and the spine connector is . Such an event determines the whole remaining subtree, so the resulting Boolean function is computed by the finite prefix up to that vertex.
Let
The probability that no absorbing side tree appears among the first spine vertices is at most
The probability that some side tree among the first has more than leaves is at most
On the complementary event, the function is computed by a prefix using at most
literal leaves. Therefore
Thus asymptotically almost all functions sampled from the And/Or-tree limiting distribution have polynomial complexity.
Verification audit: the proof uses exactly the limiting And/Or-tree distribution referred to by the conjecture; complexity is ordinary literal-leaf And/Or formula complexity; constants are represented by or , so no extra constants are assumed; the polynomial bound is uniform in .
Citation: The conjecture is from Genitrini–Gittenberger–Mailler, “No Shannon effect induced by And/Or trees.” The proof above uses the standard Kesten local limit for critical Galton–Watson/Catalan trees; I am not aware of a prior source stating this polynomial-complexity consequence explicitly.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1
PASS
The proof attacks the natural intended statement: probability under the limiting Catalan And/Or-tree distribution , then . The Kesten-spine argument is mathematically sound: absorbing fringe events occur independently with probability , so one appears within spine levels whp; fringe-size tails give polynomial-size prefix whp; that prefix computes the whole function, giving with probability tending to 1. The transfer from the Kesten local limit to is standard and not a fatal gap. I find no mismatch with the conjecture and no evident prior stronger result.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The result appears to be a short, elementary consequence of the Kesten/local-limit description of large Catalan And/Or trees: an absorbing contradictory/tautological fringe occurs on the spine after trials, and polynomial-size truncation follows by standard fringe-size tails. Even if not explicitly stated in the literature, it is too routine and too close to existing local-limit machinery to support a standalone journal paper.
Literature check: I found no explicit published theorem stating exactly that asymptotically almost all functions under the Catalan And/Or-tree limiting distribution have polynomial formula complexity. The closest relevant source is Broutin–Mailler, “And/or trees: A local limit point of view,” which develops precisely the local-limit/infinite-spine framework for random And/Or trees and relates limiting probabilities to complexity. The accepted proof is essentially an immediate corollary of that framework plus a simple absorbing-pattern estimate. I did not find a later paper or survey explicitly resolving the polynomial-complexity conjecture as stated in Genitrini–Gittenberger–Mailler.
Citation: Nicolas Broutin and Cécile Mailler, “And/or trees: A local limit point of view,” Random Structures & Algorithms 53 (2018), 15–58; arXiv:1510.06691. Conjecture from Antoine Genitrini, Bernhard Gittenberger, and Cécile Mailler, “No Shannon effect induced by And/Or trees.”
No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.