Space complexity of random formulae in resolution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study the space complexity of refuting unsatisfiable random k ‐CNFs in the Resolution proof system. We prove that for Δ ≥ 1 and any ϵ > 0, with high probability a random k ‐CNF over n variables and Δ n clauses requires resolution clause space of Ω( n /Δ 1+ϵ ). For constant Δ, this gives us linear, optimal, lower bounds on the clause space. One consequence of this lower bound is the first lower bound for size of treelike resolution refutations of random 3‐CNFs with clause density Δ ≫ n . This bound is nearly tight. Specifically, we show that with high probability, a random 3‐CNF with Δ n clauses requires treelike refutation size of exp(Ω( n /Δ 1+ϵ )), for any ϵ > 0. Our space lower bound is the consequence of three main contributions: (1) We introduce a 2‐player Matching Game on bipartite graphs G to prove that there are no perfect matchings in G . (2) We reduce lower bounds for the clause space of a formula F in Resolution to lower bounds for the complexity of the game played on the bipartite graph G ( F ) associated with F . (3) We prove that the complexity of the game is large whenever G is an expander graph. Finally, a simple probabilistic analysis shows that for a random formula F , with high probability G ( F ) is an expander. We also extend our result to the case of G‐PHP , a generalization of the Pigeonhole principle based on bipartite graphs G . © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 23: 92–109, 2003
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it