MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788459610 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.12203

A SAT+CAS Method for Enumerating Williamson Matrices of Even Order

2018· article· en· W2788459610 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis Bright, Ilias Kotsireas, Vijay Ganesh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationSolverSatisfiabilityOrder (exchange)Symbolic computationField (mathematics)Boolean satisfiability problemComputationDomain (mathematical analysis)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsAlgebra over a fieldCombinatoricsAlgorithmPure mathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present for the first time an exhaustive enumeration of Williamson matrices of even order n < 65. The search method relies on the novel SAT+CAS paradigm of coupling SAT solvers with computer algebra systems so as to take advantage of the advances made in both the field of satisfiability checking and the field of symbolic computation. Additionally, we use a programmatic SAT solver which allows conflict clauses to be learned programmatically, through a piece of code specifically tailored to the domain area. Prior to our work, Williamson matrices had only been enumerated for odd orders n < 60, so our work increases the bounds that Williamson matrices have been enumerated up to and provides the first enumeration of Williamson matrices of even order. Our results show that Williamson matrices of even order tend to be much more abundant than those of odd orders. In particular, Williamson matrices exist for every even order n < 65 but do not exist in orders 35, 47, 53, and 59.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207