MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256280318 · doi:10.1109/aspdac.2005.1466203

Integration of supercubing and learning in a SAT solver

2005· article· en· W4256280318 on OpenAlexaff
D. Babic, A.J. Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ASP-DAC 2005. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, 2005. · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploitSolverPruningComputer scienceBoolean satisfiability problemEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPoint (geometry)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning is an essential pruning technique in modern SAT solvers, but it exploits a relatively small amount of information that can be deduced from the conflicts. Recently a new pruning technique called supercubing was proposed by Goldberg et al. (2002). Supercubing can exploit functional symmetries that are abundant in industrial SAT instances. We point out the significant difficulties of integrating supercubing with learning and propose solutions. Our experimental solver is the first supercubing-based solver with performance comparable to leading edge solvers.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ASP-DAC 2005. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, 2005.Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207