MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083734106 · doi:10.2168/lmcs-8(2:8)2012

Width and size of regular resolution proofs

2012· article· en· W2083734106 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLogical Methods in Computer Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and Discovery
KeywordsResolution (logic)Mathematical proofSet (abstract data type)MathematicsContrast (vision)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceCombinatoricsGeometryProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the topic of the minimum width of a regular resolution refutation of a set of clauses. The main result shows that there are examples having small regular resolution refutations, for which any regular refutation must contain a large clause. This forms a contrast with corresponding results for general resolution refutations.

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)0.007
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.315 · 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