Guiding CDCL SAT Search via Random Exploration amid Conflict Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency of Conflict Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) SAT solving depends crucially on finding conflicts at a fast rate. State-of-the-art CDCL branching heuristics such as VSIDS, CHB and LRB conform to this goal. We take a closer look at the way in which conflicts are generated over the course of a CDCL SAT search. Our study of the VSIDS branching heuristic shows that conflicts are typically generated in short bursts, followed by what we call a conflict depression phase in which the search fails to generate any conflicts in a span of decisions. The lack of conflict indicates that the variables that are currently ranked highest by the branching heuristic fail to generate conflicts. Based on this analysis, we propose an exploration strategy, called expSAT, which randomly samples variable selection sequences in order to learn an updated heuristic from the generated conflicts. The goal is to escape from conflict depressions expeditiously. The branching heuristic deployed in expSAT combines these updates with the standard VSIDS activity scores. An extensive empirical evaluation with four state-of-the-art CDCL SAT solvers demonstrates good-to-strong performance gains with the expSAT approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".