Predicting Satisfiability at the Phase Transition
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
Uniform random 3-SAT at the solubility phase transition is one of the most widely studied and empirically hardest distributions of SAT instances. For 20 years, this distribution has been used extensively for evaluating and comparing algorithms. In this work, we demonstrate that simple rules can predict the solubility of these instances with surprisingly high accuracy. Specifically, we show how classification accuracies of about 70% can be obtained based on cheaply (polynomial-time) computable features on a wide range of instance sizes. We argue in two ways that classification accuracy does not decrease with instance size: first, we show that our models' predictive accuracy remains roughly constant across a wide range of problem sizes; second, we show that a classifier trained on small instances is sufficient to achieve very accurate predictions across the entire range of instance sizes currently solvable by complete methods. Finally, we demonstrate that a simple decision tree based on only two features, and again trained only on the smallest instances, achieves predictive accuracies close to those of our most complex model. We conjecture that this two-feature model outperforms random guessing asymptotically; due to the model's extreme simplicity, we believe that this conjecture is a worthwhile direction for future theoretical work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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