Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Meta-Mathematics of Computational Complexity Theory

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Igor C. Oliveira

Computational Complexity · Submitted 6 Apr 2025

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Our primary focus is on recent findings concerning the (un)provability of complexity bounds within theories of bounded arithmetic.

how it is stated · asserted 0.94 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2504.04416 (version 1)
Pith IDRJPBISBB, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationIgor C. Oliveira. "Meta-Mathematics of Computational Complexity Theory." arXiv:2504.04416 (2025). https://pith.science/paper/RJPBISBB
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,880 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.24 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.09 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We survey results on the formalization and independence of mathematical statements related to major open problems in computational complexity theory. Our primary focus is on recent findings concerning the (un)provability of complexity bounds within theories of bounded arithmetic. This includes the techniques employed and related open problems, such as the (non)existence of a feasible proof that P = NP.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We survey results on the formalization and independence of mathematical statements related to major open problems in computational complexity theory. contribution 0.93 0.29 0.10 asserted 0.83
s1 Our primary focus is on recent findings concerning the (un)provability of complexity bounds within theories of bounded arithmetic. contribution 0.89 0.28 0.14 asserted 0.94
s2 This includes the techniques employed and related open problems, such as the (non)existence of a feasible proof that P = NP. background 0.43 0.09 0.09 asserted 0.51

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We survey results on the formalization and independence of mathematical statements related to major open problems in computational complexity theory. Our primary focus is on recent findings concerning the (un)provability of complexity bounds within theories of bounded arithmetic. This includes the techniques employed and related open problems, such as the (non)existence of a feasible proof that P = NP.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites · 2 sentences without a confident label

Cites as background 1 paper
  • We refer to [ref] for some related results and partial progress.

    2404.11841 · Average-Case Circuit Lower Bounds · 0.97

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.