MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415903173 · doi:10.24963/kr.2025/53

Efficient Volume Computation for SMT Formulas

2025· article· W4415903173 on OpenAlexafffund
Arijit Shaw, Uddalok Sarkar, Kuldeep S. Meel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUniversity of TorontoInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsSatisfiability modulo theoriesComputationVolume (thermodynamics)SatisfiabilityContext (archaeology)Automated reasoningSet (abstract data type)ModuloSoftwareSemiring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) has recently emerged as a powerful tool for solving various automated reasoning problems across diverse domains. Unlike traditional satisfiability methods confined to Boolean variables, SMT can reason on real-life variables like bitvectors, integers, and reals. A natural extension in this context is to ask quantitative questions. One such query in the SMT theory of Linear Real Arithmetic (LRA) is computing the volume of the entire satisfiable region defined by SMT formulas. This problem is important in solving different quantitative verification queries in software verification, cyber-physical systems, and neural networks, to mention a few. We introduce ttc, an efficient algorithm that extends the capabilities of SMT solvers to volume computation. Our method decomposes the solution space of SMT Linear Real Arithmetic formulas into a union of overlapping convex polytopes, then computes their volumes and calculates their union. Our algorithm builds on recent developments in streaming-mode set unions, volume computation algorithms, and AllSAT techniques. Experimental evaluations demonstrate significant performance improvements over existing state-of-the-art approaches.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207