Exponential Recency Weighted Average Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern conflict-driven clause-learning SAT solvers routinely solve large real-world instances with millions of clauses and variables in them. Their success crucially depends on effective branching heuristics. In this paper, we propose a new branching heuristic inspired by the exponential recency weighted average algorithm used to solve the bandit problem. The branching heuristic, we call CHB, learns online which variables to branch on by leveraging the feedback received from conflict analysis. We evaluated CHB on 1200 instances from the SAT Competition 2013 and 2014 instances, and showed that CHB solves significantly more instances than VSIDS, currently the most effective branching heuristic in widespread use. More precisely, we implemented CHB as part of the MiniSat and Glucose solvers, and performed an apple-to-apple comparison with their VSIDS-based variants. CHB-based MiniSat (resp. CHB-based Glucose) solved approximately 16.1% (resp. 5.6%) more instances than their VSIDS-based variants. Additionally, CHB-based solvers are much more efficient at constructing first preimage attacks on step-reduced SHA-1 and MD5 cryptographic hash functions, than their VSIDS-based counterparts. To the best of our knowledge, CHB is the first branching heuristic to solve significantly more instances than VSIDS on a large, diverse benchmark of real-world instances.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".