analiza aiqbench
This paper presents a formal method for synthesizing minimal sufficient observation contracts using SAT/MaxSAT encodings to determine necessary attributes in finite state models. The research demonstrates that while exhaustive enumeration becomes infeasible at scale, logical synthesis solvers can efficiently identify cost-optimal or minimum-cardinality attribute sets without relying on AI inference.
Compiling Sufficient Governance Context from Declared Losses and Reachable States: Exact Observation-Contract Synthesis with Cardinality and Cost Objectives
arXiv:2609.26016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We call the object this paper derives and certifies a minimal sufficient governance context: given a finite reachable-state model, a deterministic declared verdict, and candidate observable attributes, we compute sufficient observation sets, distinguish attributes that are individually indispensable from contracts that are jointly sufficient, and select among sufficient contracts under a cardinality or declared-cost objective. An observation contract is a set of candidate attributes whose values determine the declared verdict on every reachable state; an authority contract is one selected under an objective and bound to a gate schema. We synthesize every inclusion-minimal sufficient contract where exhaustive enumeration is affordable, and a minimum-cardinality or minimum-cost contract by SAT/MaxSAT encoding otherwise, checking sufficiency directly. On a constructed code/cloud domain, the individually-indispensable core is not sufficient as an observation contract and two distinct reducts exist; a preregistered cost model separates them exactly. On a second, larger, constructed domain, the same pattern recurs, but that domain's cost model does not separate the alternatives: a fully explained cost tie, reported as found. We measure discernibility-family scaling where exhaustive enumeration is confirmed infeasible within a registered timeout, while SAT/MaxSAT synthesis solves in well under a second; MaxSAT showed no measured cardinality advantage over plain SAT. AuthorityBench compares four baselines across three domains; the declared-only baseline is not exactly sufficient on any. Every selected contract is checked for sufficiency, with a counterexample on failure and a check summary, not a portable certificate, on success -- the compiler-focused scope of a two-scope table; an independently specified end-to-end case study is registered follow-up work, not claimed here.
Abstract:We call the object this paper derives and certifies a minimal sufficient governance context: given a finite reachable-state model, a deterministic declared verdict, and candidate observable attributes, we compute sufficient observation sets, distinguish attributes that are individually indispensable from contracts that are jointly sufficient, and select among sufficient contracts under a cardinality or declared-cost objective. An observation contract is a set of candidate attributes whose values determine the declared verdict on every reachable state; an authority contract is one selected under an objective and bound to a gate schema. We synthesize every inclusion-minimal sufficient contract where exhaustive enumeration is affordable, and a minimum-cardinality or minimum-cost contract by SAT/MaxSAT encoding otherwise, checking sufficiency directly. On a constructed code/cloud domain, the individually-indispensable core is not sufficient as an observation contract and two distinct reducts exist; a preregistered cost model separates them exactly. On a second, larger, constructed domain, the same pattern recurs, but that domain's cost model does not separate the alternatives: a fully explained cost tie, reported as found. We measure discernibility-family scaling where exhaustive enumeration is confirmed infeasible within a registered timeout, while SAT/MaxSAT synthesis solves in well under a second; MaxSAT showed no measured cardinality advantage over plain SAT. AuthorityBench compares four baselines across three domains; the declared-only baseline is not exactly sufficient on any. Every selected contract is checked for sufficiency, with a counterexample on failure and a check summary, not a portable certificate, on success -- the compiler-focused scope of a two-scope table; an independently specified end-to-end case study is registered follow-up work, not claimed here.
Code, data, preregistration tags, review record, and independent reproduction (repository issue #3): this https URL. Artifact DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22884173
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO)
arXiv:2609.26016 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2609.26016v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26016 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 303 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · 13 sept. 2026

The Alignment Problem: Computer Science Meets Analytic Philosophy
LessWrong · 18 oct. 2026

Enabling Evolutionary Database Development: Database branching with Lakebase, the conclusion
Databricks · 12 iun. 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026