MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208505901 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14187

An Experimental Study of Permanently Stored Learned Clauses

2021· preprint· en· W3208505901 on OpenAlexaff
Sima Jamali, David G. M. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLimitingHeuristicScheme (mathematics)CentralityBinary numberParallel computingArithmeticTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern CDCL SAT solvers learn clauses rapidly, and an important heuristic is the clause deletion scheme. Most current solvers have two (or more) stores of clauses. One has ``valuable'' clauses which are never deleted. Most learned clauses are added to the other, with an aggressive deletion strategy to restrict its size. Recent solvers in the MapleSAT family, have comparatively complex deletion scheme, and perform well. Many solvers store only binary clauses permanently, but MapleLCMDistChronoBT stores clauses with small LBD permanently. We report an experimental study of the permanent clause store in MapleLCMDistChronoBT. We observe that this store can get quite large, but several methods for limiting its size reduced performance. We also show that alternate size and LBD based criteria improve performance, while still having large permanent stores. In particular, saving clauses up to size 8, and adding small numbers of high-centrality clauses, both improved performance, with the best improvement using both methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.110 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207