MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415594237 · doi:10.1109/jssc.2025.3617458

A Stochastic Analog Boolean Satisfiability Solver

2025· article· W4415594237 on OpenAlexaff
Shiyu Su, Qiaochu Zhang, Zerui Liu, Hsiang‐Chun Cheng, Zhengyi Qiu, Mayank Palaria, Jiacheng Ye, Deming Meng, Buyun Chen, Sushmit Hossain, Wei Wu, Mike Shuo‐Wei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersIntelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
KeywordsBoolean satisfiability problemSolverSatisfiabilityMaximum satisfiability problemScalabilityScramblingBenchmark (surveying)ComputabilityTrue quantified Boolean formula

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a stochastic analog Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver, featuring a fast open-loop architecture with continuous-time (CT) self-loopback pull-up switches, a discrete-time (DT) scrambling scheme, and a cost-efficient hybrid random code generator. The SAT prototype demonstrates 100% solvability and 3.5-$\mu $s solution time with 8.6-nJ energy consumption for 1000 hard benchmark problems (20 variables and 91 clauses) in 65-nm complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS), achieving over$1000\times $improvement in solution time compared to the prior analog SAT solver, and more than$10\times $improvement compared to state-of-the-art digital SAT solvers implemented in a similar process without additional pre-processing. Moreover, the proposed SAT solver is highly flexible and modular, allowing a low-complexity, low-cost, and scalable design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Solid-State CircuitsSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207