MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133054918

Some algorithmic and complexity results for monotone Boolean duality (hypergraph transversal)

2004· dissertation· W7133054918 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philipp Hertel

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDPLL algorithmMonotone polygonTime complexityTrue quantified Boolean formulaConjunctive normal formDuality (order theory)Boolean functionPolynomial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let y be a monotone CNF formula and let 4 be a monotone DNF formula. The problem of determining in polynomial time in the size of y and 4 whether y uharr;a=4 uharr; a for all assignments alpha (known as DUAL) has been a longstanding open problem. We show that two popular families of algorithms for DUAL (Berge's Sequential Method and Fredman and Khachiyan's Algorithm A) are really restrictions of the DPLL class of algorithms which has long been studied in relation to SAT. We also present super-polynomial lower bounds for DPLL on two classes of read-once formulae. Finally, we present DPLLCache, DPLL with memorization, and show that DPLLCache is strictly stronger than DPLL and therefore also the Sequential Method and Algorithm A. In fact, we show that DPLLCache can solve all read-once formulae using polynomial size decision trees.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207