MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37002918 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v28i1.9124

Maximum Satisfiability Using Core-Guided MaxSAT Resolution

2014· article· en· W37002918 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum satisfiability problemBoolean satisfiability problemSolverResolution (logic)SatisfiabilityInferenceAlgorithmComputer scienceSequence (biology)Core (optical fiber)MathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core-guided approaches to solving MAXSAT have proved to be effective on industrial problems. These approaches solve a MAXSAT formula by building a sequence of SAT formulas, where in each formula a greater weight of soft clauses can be relaxed. The soft clauses are relaxed via the addition of blocking variables, and the total weight of soft clauses that can be relaxed is limited by placing constraints on the blocking variables. In this work we propose an alternative approach. Our approach also builds a sequence of new SAT formulas. However, these formulas are constructed using MAXSAT resolution, a sound rule of inference for MAXSAT. MAXSAT resolution can in the worst case cause a quadratic blowup in the formula, so we propose a new compressed version of MAXSAT resolution. Using compressed MAXSAT resolution our new core-guided solver improves the state-of-theart, solving significantly more problems than other state-ofthe-art solvers on the industrial benchmarks used in the 2013 MAXSAT Solver Evaluation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.151 · 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