Predicting Propositional Satisfiability via End-to-End Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strangely enough, it is possible to use machine learning models to predict the satisfiability status of hard SAT problems with accuracy considerably higher than random guessing. Existing methods have relied on extensive, manual feature engineering and computationally complex features (e.g., based on linear programming relaxations). We show for the first time that even better performance can be achieved by end-to-end learning methods — i.e., models that map directly from raw problem inputs to predictions and take only linear time to evaluate. Our work leverages deep network models which capture a key invariance exhibited by SAT problems: satisfiability status is unaffected by reordering variables and clauses. We showed that end-to-end learning with deep networks can outperform previous work on random 3-SAT problems at the solubility phase transition, where: (1) exactly 50% of problems are satisfiable; and (2) empirical runtimes of known solution methods scale exponentially with problem size (e.g., we achieved 84% prediction accuracy on 600-variable problems, which take hours to solve with state-of-the-art methods). We also showed that deep networks can generalize across problem sizes (e.g., a network trained only on 100-variable problems, which typically take about 10 ms to solve, achieved 81% accuracy on 600-variable problems).
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".