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

Efficient SAT solving: beyond supercubes

2005· article· en· W4239560685 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. 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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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