MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401633153 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-16034

Hardware-Accelerated SAT Solvers

2024· dissertation· en· W4401633153 on OpenAlexaff
Hariprasadh Govindasamy Ravichandran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBottleneckParallel computingField-programmable gate arrayDPLL algorithmBoolean satisfiability problemSolverHardware accelerationAlgorithmComputer hardwareEmbedded systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a hardware-accelerated Boolean Satisfiability Problem (SAT) solver targeting processor/Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) System on Chip (SoC)s.Our solution accelerates the most expensive subroutine of the Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland (DPLL) algorithm, Boolean Constrain Propagation (BCP), through finegrained BCP parallelism.Our solution addresses a known bottleneck in SAT solving acceleration: unlike prior state-of-the-art solutions that have addressed the same bottleneck by limiting the amount of exploited parallelism, our solver takes advantage of fine-grained parallelization opportunities and divides large formulas into smaller partitions manageable by FPGA.These partitions are hot-swapped into the FPGA as required during runtime.It is also the first completely open-source SAT accelerator, and formula size is limited only by the amount of available external memory, not by on-chip FPGA memory.Evaluation is performed on a Xilinx Zynq platform: experiments support that hardware acceleration results in shorter execution time across varying formula sizes, subject to formula partitioning strategy.We outperform prior state-of-the-art by 1.7x and 1.1x, respectively, for 2 representative benchmarks, and boast up to 6x performance increase over software-only implementation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207