MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966464227 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.00089

A Model of Random Industrial SAT

2019· preprint· en· W2966464227 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dina Barak-Pelleg, Daniel Berend, JOHN C. SAUNDERS

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli Foundation
KeywordsSatisfiabilityDisjoint setsGeneralizationSet (abstract data type)Focus (optics)Boolean satisfiability problemMathematicsComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most studied models of SAT is random SAT. In this model, instances are composed from clauses chosen uniformly randomly and independently of each other. This model may be unsatisfactory in that it fails to describe various features of SAT instances, arising in real-world applications. Various modifications have been suggested to define models of industrial SAT. Here, we focus mainly on the aspect of community structure. Namely, here the set of variables consists of a number of disjoint communities, and clauses tend to consist of variables from the same community. Thus, we suggest a model of random industrial SAT, in which the central generalization with respect to random SAT is the additional community structure. There has been a lot of work on the satisfiability threshold of random $k$-SAT, starting with the calculation of the threshold of $2$-SAT, up to the recent result that the threshold exists for sufficiently large $k$. In this paper, we endeavor to study the satisfiability threshold for the proposed model of random industrial SAT. Our main result is that the threshold in this model tends to be smaller than its counterpart for random SAT. Moreover, under some conditions, this threshold even vanishes.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.051 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207