GraSS: Combining Graph Neural Networks with Expert Knowledge for SAT Solver Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems are routinely solved by SAT solvers in real-life applications, yet solving time can vary drastically between solvers for the same instance.This has motivated research into machine learning models that can predict, for a given SAT instance, which solver to select among several options.Existing SAT solver selection methods all rely on some hand-picked instance features, which are costly to compute and ignore the structural information in SAT graphs.In this paper we present GraSS, a novel approach for automatic SAT solver selection based on tripartite graph representations of instances and a heterogeneous graph neural network (GNN) model.While GNNs have been previously adopted in other SAT-related tasks, they do not incorporate any domain-specific knowledge and ignore the runtime variation introduced by different clause orders.We enrich the graph representation with domain-specific decisions, such as novel node feature design, positional encodings for clauses in the graph, a GNN architecture tailored to our tripartite graphs and a runtime-sensitive loss function.Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that this combination of raw representations and domain-specific choices leads to improvements in runtime for a pool of seven state-of-theart solvers on both an industrial circuit design benchmark, and
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".