MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094368841 · doi:10.1145/1822327.1822333

Scalable formula decomposition for propositional satisfiability

2010· article· en· W2094368841 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Monnet, Roger Villemaire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDPLL algorithmSatisfiabilityComputer scienceProbabilistic logicScalabilityBoolean satisfiability problemPropositional formulaTheoretical computer scienceDecompositionConjunctive normal formAlgorithmPropositional variableArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Propositional satisfiability solving, or SAT, is an important reasoning task arising in numerous applications, such as circuit design, formal verification, planning, scheduling or probabilistic reasoning. The depth-first search DPLL procedure is in practice the most efficient complete algorithm to date. Previous studies have shown the theoretical and experimental advantages of decomposing propositional formulas to guide the ordering of variable instantiation in DPLL. However, in practice, the computation of a tree decomposition may require a considerable amount of time and space on large formulas; existing decomposition tools are unable to handle most currently challenging SAT instances because of their size. In this paper, we introduce a simple, fast and scalable method to quickly produce tree decompositions of large SAT problems. We show experimentally the efficiency of orderings derived from these decompositions on the solving of challenging benchmarks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207