MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037086109 · doi:10.1109/icpp.2013.20

A Dynamic Moldable Job Scheduling Based Parallel SAT Solver

2013· article· en· W2037086109 on OpenAlexafffund
Sajjad Asghar, Eric Aubanel, David Avis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingSolverBoolean satisfiability problemTree (set theory)Scheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsProgramming languageSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a shared cluster facility scheduling of parallel jobs is an important factor that can affect the performance and turnaround time of the submitted jobs. To solve hard tree search problems, we have designed the Dynamic Moldable Tree Search (DMTS) framework. The DMTS framework allows existing serial tree search applications to run in parallel with very little development effort. The DMTS framework is designed to run on parallel computing infrastructures, including clusters, computational grids, and clouds. Target applications for the DMTS framework are hard tree search problems such as Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems. SAT is amongst the most important problems in theoretical computer science. In this paper we present a parallel Dynamic Moldable SAT (DMSAT) solver. DMSAT runs on top of the DMTS framework. DMSAT is a parallel version of minis at, miniSat is one of the most widely used open source SAT solvers. We compare the performance of DMSAT with PMSAT and miniSat. Our experimental results show that the dynamic moldable model of DMSAT perform much better than the other SAT solvers. In SAT race competitions all those problems that are not solved by a SAT solver within 1200 seconds are marked as unsolvable. DMSAT is also able to solve hard SAT problems that were not solvable by miniSat in the past SAT races.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207