Computational benchmark reveals structure-dependent state compression speedups across large combinatorial tasks, indicating benefits occur only when reduction overhead remains low.
This record documents three independently executed validation experiments for DRCC (Dimensional Reduction via Controlled Combinatorics): verifying an N-bit ripple-carry adder by exhaustive enumeration versus a constant-size structural certificate; solving the Pigeonhole-Principle SAT family with a reference DPLL solver, with and without a symmetry-breaking controlled reduction; and compressing a redundant linear layer via row-equivalence classes (DRCC-rank ). All three raw problem-size measures exceed 106 – adder input states, Boolean assignments, and linear-layer parameters, respectively, three distinct units reported separately in Table 38 rather than treated as one interchangeable quantity; the SAT family’s raw state space exceeds 1016. No timed performance measure- ment in this document is extrapolated, every point plotted as a measured runtime is a mean over repeated executed runs, with the underlying trial data available for independent recomputation. (Schematic, waveform, and structural-topology figures are not runtime measurements and are not covered by this claim.) Read together with the reconstruction-width framework of Section 2, the three exper- iments support a conditional rather than universal claim: task-relative state compression produces a measured advantage precisely where discovering and applying the reduction is itself cheap, and produces no advantage where a fair classical baseline already exploits the same structure – both outcomes are reported, not just the favorable one. Section 6 extends this record with thirty-five further experiments (Experiments 4–38): four independent fair-baseline stress tests, four automatic task-signature discovery experi- ments, adiscovery-tractabilitycomparisonspanningupto≈7.6×104×, anorderingheuristic validatedonupto100syntheticinstancesandadversariallystress-testedto56disclosedcoun- terexamples, and an external validation run against the public PACE 2017 graph benchmark. (The count of 38 executed experiments treats Experiments 4b and 38A/38B as separate ex- ecuted records; Experiments 36–37 have harness scripts but no result records available for this manuscript and are therefore not counted among the 38 results.) The conclusion of the combined 38-experiment record is narrower than a universal speedup claim: DRCC is a structure-dependent reconstruction-engineering method, strong on several well-characterized families and explicitly not uniform across others, including some of the external graphs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reza Hesamiy (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: