Skip to content

docs: verify reduction #841 — NAESatisfiability → SetSplitting#980

Closed
zazabap wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
issue/841-verify-naesat-setsplitting
Closed

docs: verify reduction #841 — NAESatisfiability → SetSplitting#980
zazabap wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
issue/841-verify-naesat-setsplitting

Conversation

@zazabap
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@zazabap zazabap commented Apr 1, 2026

Summary

  • Typst proof of NAESatisfiability → SetSplitting reduction with construction, correctness (⟹ + ⟸), solution extraction, overhead table, YES example (n=4), and NO example (n=3)
  • Constructor verification script: 32,513 checks, 0 failures, all 7 mandatory sections, exhaustive n ≤ 5
  • Adversary verification script: 46,774 checks, 0 failures, independent implementation with hypothesis property-based testing
  • Cross-comparison: 615 instances compared, 0 disagreements, 0 feasibility mismatches

Verification Report

=== Verification Report: NAESatisfiability → SetSplitting (#841) ===

Typst proof: docs/paper/verify-reductions/naesat_setsplitting.typ
  - Construction: ✓ (3 steps)
  - Correctness: ✓ (⟹ + ⟸)
  - Extraction: ✓
  - Overhead: ✓ (universe_size = 2n, num_subsets = n + m)
  - YES example: ✓ (4 variables)
  - NO example: ✓ (3 variables, all 8 assignments shown to fail)

Constructor: verify_naesat_setsplitting.py
  - Checks: 32,513 passed, 0 failed
  - Sections: 1(sympy) 2(exhaustive) 3(extraction) 4(overhead) 5(structural) 6(YES) 7(NO)
  - Forward: exhaustive n ≤ 5
  - Backward: exhaustive n ≤ 5
  - Gap analysis: all claims covered

Adversary: adversary_naesat_setsplitting.py
  - Checks: 46,774 passed, 0 failed
  - Property-based: 3 hypothesis strategies, 500 examples each
  - Forward: exhaustive n ≤ 5
  - Backward: exhaustive n ≤ 5
  - Bugs found: none

Cross-comparison:
  - Instances compared: 615
  - Structural agreement: 615/615
  - Feasibility agreement: 615/615

Bugs found: none
Iterations: 1 round (first-pass clean)

Verdict: VERIFIED

Closes #841

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Typst: Construction (3 steps) + Correctness (⟹ + ⟸) + Extraction + Overhead + YES/NO examples
Constructor: 32,513 checks, 0 failures (exhaustive n ≤ 5, 7 sections)
Adversary: 46,774 checks, 0 failures (independent impl + hypothesis)
Cross-comparison: 615 instances, all agree

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Apr 1, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.03%. Comparing base (423506c) to head (168f6be).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #980   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.03%   98.03%           
=======================================
  Files         784      784           
  Lines       82310    82310           
=======================================
  Hits        80695    80695           
  Misses       1615     1615           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Rule] NOT-ALL-EQUAL 3SAT to SET SPLITTING

1 participant