Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem is fundamental to the theory of NP-completeness. Indeed, using the concept of "polynomial-time reducibility" all NP-complete problems can be polynomially reduced to SAT. Thus, any new technique for satisfiability problems will lead to general approaches for thousands of hard combinatorial problems. In this paper, we introduce the incremental propositional satisfiability problem that consists of maintaining the satisfiability of a propositional formula anytime a conjunction of new clauses is added. More precisely, the goal here is to check whether a solution to a SAT problem continues to be a solution anytime a new set of clauses is added and if not, whether the solution can be modified efficiently to satisfy the old formula and the new clauses. We will study the applicability of systematic and approximation methods for solving incremental SAT problems. The systematic method is based on the branch and bound technique while the approximation methods rely on stochastic local search and genetic algorithms. Experimental tests, conducted on randomly generated SAT instances, demonstrate the efficiency in time of the approximation methods over the branch and bound algorithm. However these approximation methods do not always guarantee the completeness of the solution returned. We show that a method we propose that uses non systematic search in a limited form together with branch and bound has the best compromise, in practice, between time and quality of the solution returned (success ratio).
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".