On semidefinite least squares and minimal unsatisfiability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides new results on the application of semidefinite optimization to satisfiability by studying the connection between semidefinite optimization and minimal unsatisfiability. We use a semidefinite least squares problem to assign weights to the clauses of a propositional formula in conjunctive normal form. We then show that these weights are a measure of the necessity of each clause in rendering the formula unsatisfiable, the weight of a necessary clause is strictly greater than the weight of any unnecessary clause. In particular, we show the following results: first, if a formula is minimal unsatisfiable, then all of its clauses have the same weight; second, if a clause does not belong to any minimal unsatisfiable subformula, then its weight is zero. An additional contribution of this paper is a demonstration of how the infeasibility of a semidefinite optimization problem can be tested using a semidefinite least squares problem by extending an earlier result for linear optimization. The connection between the semidefinite least squares problem and Farkas’ Lemma for semidefinite optimization is also discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".