MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986608131

Prioritized Unit Propagation and Extended Resolution Techniques for SAT Solvers

2023· dissertation· en· W6986608131 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsBoolean satisfiability problemMaximum satisfiability problemHeuristicResolution (logic)SatisfiabilityClass (philosophy)Constraint (computer-aided design)True quantified Boolean formula
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NP-complete problems like the Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) Problem are ubiquitous in computer science, mathematics, and engineering. Consequently, researchers have developed algorithms such as Conflict-Driven Clause-Learning (CDCL) SAT solvers, aimed at determining the satisfiability of Boolean formulas. As the result of decades of research in the development of CDCL SAT solvers, these algorithms solve real-life SAT instances surprisingly quickly, performing well despite the fact that the SAT problem is believed to be intractable in general. While modern CDCL SAT solvers are efficient for many real-world applications, there is continual demand for ever more powerful heuristics for newer applications. This demand in turn provides the impetus for research in solver heuristics. In this thesis, we address this need by proposing a new heuristic for Boolean Constraint Propagation (BCP), a key component of CDCL SAT solvers, and a novel, extensible, architectural design of an Extended Resolution (ER) SAT solver, a class of solvers that is more powerful than CDCL solvers. \n \nThe impressive performance of CDCL SAT solvers on real-life Boolean instances is, in part, made possible by a combination of logical reasoning rules and heuristics integrated into different components of the solvers. Given that such combinations are currently the most successful paradigm in SAT solving, it is natural to ask how such combinations can be made even more efficient. We observe that there are two different approaches that can be taken to improve SAT solvers: one approach is to modify individual components within the SAT solving algorithm, and the other approach is to change the overall structure of the algorithm. We explore both approaches in this thesis. \n \nFollowing the first approach, we examine a critical component of CDCL: the Boolean Constraint Propagation (BCP) algorithm, which systematically finds implications of variable assignments made by the solver. In most implementations of BCP, variable values are propagated greedily -- the values of implied variables are set immediately after they are detected. This observation suggests that there could be a smarter way to perform BCP by prioritizing part of the search space rather than propagating implied variables immediately after they are encountered. In this work, we develop an algorithm which allows BCP to prioritize propagations, choose a heuristic priority ordering of the variables, and demonstrate a class of instances where our prioritized BCP algorithm, combined with this heuristic ordering, is able to outperform the traditional BCP algorithm. \n \nFor the second approach, we note that solvers are fundamentally mathematical proof systems, and that CDCL produces proofs in the Resolution proof system, which is theoretically weaker than Extended Resolution (ER), a related proof system. Hence, it is natural to try integrating ER techniques into the CDCL algorithm, thus rendering it more powerful. However, it is well known that automating the ER proof system deterministically can be very challenging. Instead of proposing a single set of techniques to implement the ER proof system, we develop a programmatic framework (and an associated set of techniques) that enables one to upgrade CDCL solvers into an ER-based SAT solver. More precisely, we add three new major programmatic components: extension variable addition, extension variable substitution, and extension variable deletion. These components can be easily extended to test various ER ideas and heuristics. One of our considered heuristics is shown to be generally competitive with the baseline CDCL solver while improving upon the baseline for a specific class of cryptographic instances.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207