The Efficiency of Resolution and Davis--Putnam Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider several problems related to the use of resolution-based methods for determining whether a given boolean formula in conjunctive normal form is satisfiable. First, building on the work of Clegg, Edmonds, and Impagliazzo in [Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Philadelphia, PA, 1996, ACM, New York, 1996, pp. 174--183], we give an algorithm for unsatisfiability that when given an unsatisfiable formula of F finds a resolution proof of F. The runtime of our algorithm is subexponential in the size of the shortest resolution proof of F. Next, we investigate a class of backtrack search algorithms for producing resolution refutations of unsatisfiability, commonly known as Davis--Putnam procedures, and provide the first asymptotically tight average-case complexity analysis for their behavior on random formulas. In particular, for a simple algorithm in this class, called ordered DLL, we prove that the running time of the algorithm on a randomly generated k-CNF formula with n variables and m clauses is $2^{\Theta(n(n/m)^{1/(k-2)})}$ with probability $1-o(1)$. Finally, we give new lower bounds on $\mbox{res}(F)$, the size of the smallest resolution refutation of F, for a class of formulas representing the pigeonhole principle and for randomly generated formulas. For random formulas, Chvatal and Szemeredi [J. ACM, 35 (1988), pp. 759--768] had shown that random 3-CNF formulas with a linear number of clauses require exponential size resolution proofs, and Fu [On the Complexity of Proof Systems, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1995] extended their results to k-CNF formulas. These proofs apply only when the number of clauses is $\Omega(n \log n)$. We show that a lower bound of the form $2^{n^{\gamma}}$ holds with high probability even when the number of clauses is $n^{(k+2)/4-\epsilon}$.
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 | 0.013 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".