Bibliographic record
Abstract
SAT problems are fundamental in representing and solving combinatorial applications. Over the past years, many sophisticated SAT solvers have been proposed. Due to the topic’s relevance, a SAT competition is scheduled yearly to promote solving hard SAT instances. There is no unique solver to tackle all SAT problems efficiently. Indeed, some solvers work best for some SAT instances but perform poorly for others. This limitation has been addressed, in the literature, by identifying a pool of solvers that complement each other for efficiently tackling a given set of SAT instances. This pool of solvers is called a portfolio. Several studies have been conducted to find the optimal portfolio maximizing the number of solved SAT instances, minimizing the overall running time, or a trade-off between both. In this context, we present a new approach that first finds the suitable portfolio meeting each of these objectives. Then, the approach predicts the best solver for any new SAT instance. Our approach is based on Greedy search techniques, clustering, and deep learning. More precisely, we investigate two different scenarios. In the first one, our goal is to find the best portfolio capable of solving the largest number of instances within a given time limit. Both the Greedy-based method and clustering are used in this case. The second scenario aims to find the optimal portfolio to minimize the penalized average running time. The latter objective captures a good trade-off between the objective in the first scenario and the overall average running time. In addition to Greedy search and clustering, we consider a variant of the Beam-search technique to address this scenario. To assess the performance of our approach regarding the two scenarios, we conduct multiple experiments on the SAT2021 competition datasets that include SAT instances together with participants’ solvers’ results for each instance. The outcomes from the conducted experiments are encouraging and promising.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".