| paper | d4-conf-atal-2018-0189 |
| authors | — |
| venue | ? |
| filed under | unclassified |
| judged by | gpt-6-luna / xhigh (triple__luna__xhigh__c6r1) |
| judge confidence | medium |
| authors would recognise it | no |
Theorem 4.7 is a named constructive result: its recursive \(T(n)\) supplies dynamic schedules with weak relevance, so it has computational character even without a runtime analysis. The proposed population mirror asks whether “almost every match” is relevant, but a mass distribution does not encode the named pairings and individual score histories; restoring them requires a new scheduling model rather than a continuous version the authors would recognize.
fails bit b-changes — the continuum limit changes the question
Theorem 4.7 constructively gives weakly relevant dynamic schedules; Theorems 4.1 and 4.8 give finite structural impossibility results, and the relevance characterizations remain about individual contestants.
I can’t make a case that meets your anchor requirement: the paper has no named computational-complexity result. Theorem 4.1 proves that static, point-based round-robin tournaments with \(n\ge5\) cannot be weakly relevant; Theorem 4.7 constructs weakly relevant dynamic tournaments; and Theorem 4.8 rules out strong relevance for balanced tournaments with even \(n\ge6\). These are structural existence results, not claims that a computational problem is in P, NP-hard, FPT, or otherwise classified. The other numbered results characterize relevance or establish supporting facts.
A possible continuous-population angle would treat contestants as a distribution over types, with mass giving each type’s share, and ask whether a schedule can make almost every match relevant. But turning an individual binary match into a mass-level event risks changing what “relevant” means in this paper. Since there is no qualifying anchor to support that question, presenting it as a continuous mirror of one of the paper’s results would overstate the positive case.
The proponent offers no result to mirror: Theorems 4.1, 4.7, and 4.8 are structural existence results about relevance and schedules, not complexity classifications of a computational problem. The paper neither defines an algorithmic task with an input and output nor establishes a running time or hardness result. That is the strongest objection under ChoCo’s criteria: a continuous complexity mirror would have to supply the computational question itself.
The best candidate is to take a large cohort of exchangeable contestants and ask whether a schedule can make a large share of its matches relevant. But making that precise requires a new model of measure-valued pairings and outcome-dependent schedules. The paper’s relevance predicate concerns a particular match between two contestants and each contestant’s eventual rank; an aggregate distribution alone does not specify those pairings or the tagged contestants’ histories. One could build a continuous scheduling problem that tracks them, but it would be a new project motivated by this paper, not a continuous mirror of one of its named computational results.
This is a strong case against treating the paper as a ChoCo mirror. It does not prove that the new scheduling problem would be uninteresting; it shows that establishing its value would require a separate case.
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.