MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121072219 · doi:10.5555/1870926.1871338

Leveraging dominators for preprocessing QBF

2010· article· en· W2121072219 on OpenAlexaff
Hratch Mangassarian, Long Bao Le, Alexandra Goultiaeva, Andreas Veneris, Fahiem Bacchus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprocessorConjunctive normal formComputer scienceVery-large-scale integrationAlgorithmTrue quantified Boolean formulaComputational complexity theoryTime complexityTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract — Many CAD for VLSI problems can be naturally encoded as Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs) and solved with QBF solvers. Furthermore, such problems often contain circuitbased information that is lost during the translation to Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF), the format accepted by most modern solvers. In this work, a novel preprocessing framework for circuit-based QBF problems is presented. It leverages structural circuit dominators to reduce the problem size and expedite the solving process. Our circuit-based QBF preprocessor PReDom recursively reduces dominated subcircuits to return a simpler but equisatisfiable QBF instance. A rigorous proof is given for eliminating subcircuits dominated by single outputs, irrespective of input quantifiers. Experimental results are presented for circuit diameter computation problems. With preprocessing times of at most five seconds using PReDom, three state-of-the-art QBF solvers can solve 27 % to 45 % of our problem instances, compared to none without preprocessing. I.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207