Triple

T21088289
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Karp reduction E519560 entity
Predicate relationToNPCompleteness P142791 FINISHED
Object used to define NP-complete problems LITERAL FINISHED

How this triple was built (2 steps)

Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.

NER Named-entity recognition gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: used to define NP-complete problems | Statement: [Karp reduction, relationToNPCompleteness, used to define NP-complete problems]
PD Predicate disambiguation gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: relationToNPCompleteness
Context triple: [Karp reduction, relationToNPCompleteness, used to define NP-complete problems]
  • A. isNPComplete
    Indicates that a decision problem is both in NP and NP-hard, meaning it can be verified in polynomial time and is at least as hard as any problem in NP.
  • B. NPCompletenessProvedBy
    Indicates that the NP-completeness of a problem is established through a proof provided by a particular person, work, or method.
  • C. complexityClassRelation
    Indicates a relationship between two computational complexity classes, such as inclusion, equivalence, or separation, within the hierarchy of complexity theory.
  • D. yearNPCompletenessProved
    Indicates the year in which the NP-completeness of a given problem was formally proved.
  • E. NPCompletenessProvedIndependentlyBy
    Indicates that the NP-completeness of a problem was established in a separate, independent proof by the specified agent or source.
  • F. None of above. chosen

Provenance (4 batches)

The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.

Step Stage Batch ID Status When
creating Elicitation batch_69e0b507dd9081908fb8bfcbef4c8b46 completed April 16, 2026, 10:08 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e7094cebe08190bb10f51a45c244ec completed April 21, 2026, 5:21 a.m.
PD Predicate disambiguation batch_69e5dbfcd5e881908f1e4e0d2d237856 completed April 20, 2026, 7:55 a.m.
PDg Predicate description generation batch_69e5e2e03d88819086f8b641656ad8b0 completed April 20, 2026, 8:25 a.m.
Created at: April 16, 2026, 2:50 p.m.