MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001495051 · doi:10.5555/982792.982810

Exponential bounds for DPLL below the satisfiability threshold

2004· article· en· W2001495051 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDPLL algorithmBacktrackingSatisfiabilityExponential functionMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysisPhase-locked loop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For each k> = 4, we give rk> 0 such that a random k-CNF formula F with n variables and brknc clausesis satisfiable with high probability, but ordered-dlltakes exponential time on F with uniformly positiveprobability. Using results of [2], this can be strengthened to a high probability result for certain natu-ral backtracking schemes and extended to many other DPLL algorithms. 1 Previous work In the last twenty years a significant amount of workhas been devoted to the study of randomly generated satisfiability instances and the performance of differentalgorithms on them. Historically, a major motivation for studying random instances has been the desire tounderstand the hardness of "typical " instances. Indeed, some of the better practical ideas in use today comefrom insights gained by studying the performance of algorithms on random k-SAT instances (defined below).Let Ck(n) denote the set of all possible disjunctionsof k distinct, non-complementary literals (k-clauses)from some canonical set of n Boolean variables. A ran-dom k-CNF formula Fk(n, m) is formed by selecting uni-formly, independently, and with replacement m clausesfrom Ck(n) and taking their conjunction. We will saythat a sequence of random events E n occurs with highprobability (w.h.p.) if lim n!1 Pr[En] = 1 and with uni-formly positive probability if lim inf n!1 Pr[En]> 0.It is widely believed that for each k> = 3, thereexists a constant ck such that Fk(n, m = cn) is w.h.p.satisfiable if c < ck and w.h.p. unsatisfiable if c> ck.Currently, the best general bounds are 2 k ln 2- O(k) < ck < 2k ln 2- O(1) , where by ck < c we mean that Fk(n, cn) is w.h.p. unsatisfiable (analogously for ck> c).Let res(F) denote the size of the minimal resolutionrefutation of a formula F (we define res(F) to be infinitewhen F is satisfiable). A celebrated result of Chv'ataland Szemer'edi [5] asserts that for all k> = 3 and every

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it