Exploring Conflict Generating Decisions: Initial Results (Extended Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) is an NP-complete problem, indicating its inherent computational hardness. However, Conflict Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) SAT solvers efficiently tackle large instances in diverse domains. Swift conflict identification is crucial for effective problem-solving, as conflicts lead to the learning of search space pruning clauses, pinpointing the root causes of conflicts and preventing their recurrence. CDCL decision heuristics prioritize variables that participated in recent conflicts, anticipating rapid conflict generation and expediting additional clause learning. In practice, only a fraction of decisions lead to conflicts, yet some decisions may yield multiple conflicts. In this paper, we delve into a detailed study of conflict generating decisions in CDCL, distinguishing between single conflict (sc) decisions, generating only one conflict, and multi-conflict (mc) decisions, producing two or more conflicts. Our empirical analysis characterizes each decision type based on the quality of the learned clauses they produce. Furthermore, our theoretical analysis reveals a crucial distinction: consecutive clauses learned within the same mc decision form a chain of clauses, absent in learned clauses from sc decisions. This leads to the hypothesis that the reasons for conflicts in mc decisions are more closely related than the reasons for conflicts in sc decisions, empirically confirmed with our introduced notion of reason proximity. Finally, we propose score reduction (sr) as a novel decision strategy, reducing the selection priority of certain variables from learned clauses in mc decisions. With four sets of benchmarks, culminating in over 1200 benchmarks, empirical evaluation of sr implemented on top of the SAT competition 2023 winner solver reveals the merit of this new strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".