Boosting the Performance of SLS and CDCL Solvers by Preprocessor Tuning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preprocessing techniques are crucial for SAT solvers when it comes to reaching state- of-the-art performance as it was shown by the results of the last SAT Competitions. The usefulness of a preprocessing technique depends highly on its own parameters, on the in- stances on which it is applied and on the used solver. In this paper we first give an extended analysis of the performance gain reached by using different preprocessing techniques in- dividually in combination with CDCL solvers on application instances and SLS solvers on crafted instances. Further, we provide an analysis of combinations of preprocessing techniques by means of automated algorithm configuration, where we search for optimal preprocessor configurations for different scenarios. Our results show that the performance of CDCL and especially of SLS solvers can be further improved when using appropriate preprocessor configurations. The solvers augmented with the best found preprocessing configurations outperform the original solvers on the instances from the SAT Challenge 2012, achieving new state-of-the-art results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it