MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017161555

AlphaSMT: A Reinforcement Learning Guided SMT Solver

2023· dissertation· en· W7017161555 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatisfiability modulo theoriesReinforcement learningFlexibility (engineering)SolverClass (philosophy)Function (biology)Artificial neural networkSoftware
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers are programs that decide whether a first-order logic formula is satisfiable. Over the last two decades, these solvers have become central to many methods and tools in fields as diverse as software engineering, verification, security, and Artificial Intelligence. Most modern SMT solvers provide user-controllable strategies, i.e., users can define a strategy that customizes a solving algorithm for their own problems by combining individual tactics as building blocks. A tactic is a well-defined and implemented reasoning step provided by the SMT solver, which either simplifies, trans- \nforms, or solves the given input SMT formula. The flexibility of customizing a strategy to a specialized type of formula is important since no existing strategy is considered optimal for all instances. However, finding a good customized strategy is challenging even for experts. \n \nIn this thesis we present a novel class of reinforcement-learning (RL) guided methods, implemented in the Z3 SMT solver and that we refer to as AlphaSMT, which adaptively constructs the expected best strategy for any given input SMT formula. Briefly, the AlphaSMT RL framework combines deep Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) and logical reasoning in a unique way in order to enable the RL agent to learn the best combination of tactics for a given class of formulas. In more detail, a deep neural network serves as both the value function and the policy, evaluating state-action pairs and making the decision of which \ntactic to choose at each step. The neural network is trained toward the optimal policy by learning from self-exploring sampling solving processes. MCTS is used as a lookahead planning step for each decision made in the sampling processes. \n \nWe evaluated the performance of AlphaSMT on benchmark sets from three SMT logics, namely, quantifier-free non-linear real arithmetic (QF NRA), quantifier-free non-linear integer arithmetic (QF NIA), and quantifier-free bit-vector (QF BV). In all these logics, AlphaSMT outperforms its base solver, Z3, by solving up to 80.5% more instances in a testing set. Evaluation results also show that a reasonably longer tactic timeout helps solve more instances and a pre-solver contributes significantly to the speedup.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207