SAT-to-SAT: Declarative Extension of SAT Solvers with New Propagators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Special-purpose propagators speed up solving logic programs by inferring facts that are hard to deduce otherwise. However, implementing special-purpose propagators is a non-trivial task and requires expert knowledge of solvers. This paper proposes a novel approach in logic programming that allows (1) logical specification of both the problem itself and its propagators and (2) automatic incorporation of such propagators into the solving process. We call our proposed language P[R] and our solver SAT-to-SAT because it facilitates communication between several SAT solvers. Using our proposal, non-specialists can specify new reasoning methods (propagators) in a declarative fashion and obtain a solver that benefits from both state-of-the-art techniques implemented in SAT solvers as well as problem-specific reasoning methods that depend on the problem's structure. We implement our proposal and show that it outperforms the existing approach that only allows modeling a problem but does not allow modeling the reasoning methods for that problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".