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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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