| paper | d4-conf-aaai-2015-0227 |
| authors | — |
| venue | ? |
| filed under | unclassified |
| judged by | gpt-6-luna / xhigh (triple__luna__xhigh__c6r1) |
| judge confidence | high |
| authors would recognise it | unclear |
The article contains no numbered computational result that can anchor a mirror. Its single-peaked consistency results are attributed to a separate 2014 technical report, while the empirical methods are proposals rather than results established here.
fails bit a — no named computational result to mirror
No result established in this article is covered; the single-peaked consistency results are attributed to Fitzsimmons (2014), and the empirical methods are proposed future work.
I can’t make an anchored positive case under your rules: the paper contains no numbered Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, or Proposition asserting a computational result. It is a research statement and agenda, not a paper presenting such results.
The closest candidate is the claim that single-peaked consistency for weak orders, under three definitions, is in P. But the paper attributes that work to Fitzsimmons (2014), a separate technical report, and gives no numbered result here. The cited Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is also not this paper’s computational result. A continuous mirror built around either would miss the required anchor.
The strongest case against a paper-anchored mirror is that the article presents no named computational result to mirror. Its closest candidate is single-peaked consistency for weak orders: the text says the author showed that three versions are in P, but attributes those results to a separate 2014 technical report. This paper states no numbered theorem, lemma, corollary, or proposition establishing their complexity. The manipulation and control results are background or citations, and the empirical methods and future research are proposals. The proponent therefore raised no qualifying anchor; there is nothing to defeat result by result.
A stronger proposed mirror would take a rational distribution over weak-order types and ask whether its support admits a common single-peaked axis, perhaps also asking how much mass must be removed to obtain one. That is a coherent population-level question, and repeated ballot types are plausible in large elections. But the consistency result belongs to the separate report, while the mass-removal variant is a new question. Either could be a useful ChoCo lead; neither is a continuous mirror anchored in a result established by this article.
So the negative case is strong under the paper-specific anchor requirement, but it does not establish that no worthwhile scenario exists anywhere. If a result merely summarized from the 2014 report counts as an anchor, the consistency mirror becomes a plausible survivor and the case against it weakens.
The adversarial triple: the proponent anchors on up to three named results; the opponent sees that case and must defeat every anchor; the judge decides which case convinced it. These are the pipeline’s own outputs, generated by tools/triple_run.py — no human edited them. The paper’s own text is not reproduced here beyond the quoted statement above.