A uniform approach for generating proofs and strategies for both true and false QBF formulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many important problems can be compactly represented as quantified boolean formulas (QBF) and solved by general QBF solvers. To date QBF solvers have mainly focused on determining whether or not the input QBF is true or false. However, additional important information about an application can be gathered from its QBF formulation. In this paper we demonstrate that a circuitbased QBF solver can be exploited to obtain a QResolution proof of the truth or the falsity of a QBF. QBFs have a natural interpretation as a two person game and our main result is to show how, via a simple computation, the moves for the winning player can be computed directly from these proofs. This result shows that the proof is a representation of the winning strategy. In previous approaches the winning strategy has often been represented in a way that makes it hard to verify. In our approach the correctness of the strategy follows directly from the correctness of the proof, which is relatively easy to verify.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".