Analysis of Pure Literal Elimination Rule for Non-uniform Random (MAX) k-SAT Problem with an Arbitrary Degree Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MAX k-SAT is one of the archetypal NP-hard problems. Its variation called random MAX k-SAT problem was introduced in order to understand how hard it is to solve instances of the problem on average. The most common model to sample random instances is the uniform model, which has received a large amount of attention. However, the uniform model often fails to capture important structural properties we observe in the real-world instances. To address these limitations, a more general (in a certain sense) model has been proposed, the configuration model, which is able to produce instances with an arbitrary distribution of variables' degrees, and so can simulate biases in instances appearing in various applications. Our overall goal is to expand the theory built around the uniform model to the more general configuration model for a wide range of degree distributions. This includes locating satisfiability thresholds and analysing the performance of the standard heuristics applied to instances sampled from the configuration model. In this paper we analyse the performance of the pure literal elimination rule. We provide an equation that given an underlying degree distribution gives the number of clauses the pure literal elimination rule satisfies w.h.p. We also show how the distribution of variable degrees changes over time as the algorithm is being executed.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".