Clause learning can effectively P-simulate general propositional 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
Currently, the most effective complete SAT solvers are based on the DPLL algorithm augmented by clause learning. These solvers can handle many real-world problems from application areas like verification, diagnosis, planning, and design. Without clause learning, however, DPLL loses most of its effectiveness on real world problems. Recently there has been some work on obtaining a deeper understanding of the technique of clause learning. In this paper we utilize the idea of effective p-simulation, which is a new way of comparing clause learning with general resolution and other proof systems. We then show that pool proofs, a previously used characterization of clause learning, can effectively p-simulate general resolution. Furthermore, this result holds even for the more restrictive class of greedy, unit propagating, pool proofs, which more accurately characterize clause learning as it is used in practice. This result is surprising and indicates that clause learning is significantly more powerful than was previously known.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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