MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239560685 · doi:10.1109/dac.2005.193910

Efficient SAT solving: beyond supercubes

2005· article· en· W4239560685 on OpenAlexaff
D. Babic, J. Bingham, A.J. Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. 42nd Design Automation Conference, 2005. · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPruningComputer scienceSpeedupBoolean satisfiability problemBenchmark (surveying)Maximum satisfiability problemSolverTheoretical computer scienceBoolean functionAlgorithmProgramming languageParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SAT (Boolean satisfiability) has become the primary Boolean reasoning engine for many EDA applications, so the efficiency of SAT solving is of great practical importance. Recently, Goldberg et al introduced supercubing, a different approach to search-space pruning, based on a theory that unifies many existing methods. Their implementation reduced the number of decisions, but no speedup was obtained. In this paper, we generalize beyond supercubes, creating a theory we call B-cubing, and show how to implement B-cubing in a practical solver. On extensive benchmark runs, using both real problems and synthetic benchmarks, the new technique is competitive on average with the newest version of ZChaff, is much faster in some cases, and is more robust.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings. 42nd Design Automation Conference, 2005.Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207