Enhancing SAT solvers with glue variable predictions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern SAT solvers routinely operate at scales that make it impractical to query a neural network for every branching decision. NeuroCore, proposed by Selsam and Bjorner, offered a proof-of-concept that neural networks can still accelerate SAT solvers by only periodically refocusing a score-based branching heuristic. However, that work suffered from several limitations: their modified solvers require GPU acceleration, further ablations showed that they were no better than a random baseline on the SATCOMP 2018 benchmark, and their training target of unsat cores required an expensive data pipeline which only labels relatively easy unsatisfiable problems. We address all these limitations, using a simpler network architecture allowing CPU inference for even large industrial problems with millions of clauses, and training instead to predict em glue variables---a target for which it is easier to generate labelled data, and which can also be formulated as a reinforcement learning task. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by modifying the state-of-the-art SAT solver CaDiCaL, improving its performance on SATCOMP 2018 and SATRACE 2019 with supervised learning and its performance on a dataset of SHA-1 preimage attacks with reinforcement learning.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
11 papers.
- 2021LIME: Learning Inductive Bias for Primitives of Mathematical Reasoningcited by 46
- 2022Machine Learning Methods in Solving the Boolean Satisfiability Problemcited by 22
- 2021NeuroBack: Improving CDCL SAT Solving using Graph Neural Networkscited by 19
- 2023G4SATBench: Benchmarking and Advancing SAT Solving with Graph Neural Networkscited by 17
- 2024AutoSAT: Automatically Optimize SAT Solvers via Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2023HardSATGEN: Understanding the Difficulty of Hard SAT Formula Generation and A Strong Structure-Hardness-Aware Baselinecited by 12
- 2022Denoising Diffusion for Sampling SAT Solutionscited by 4
- 2025Structure based SAT dataset for analysing GNN generalisationcited by 1
- 2023Machine Learning for SAT: Restricted Heuristics and New Graph Representationscited by 0
- 2023Using deep learning to construct stochastic local search SAT solvers with performance boundscited by 0
- 2026Transfer Learning from Foundational Optimization Embeddings to Unsupervised SAT Representationscited by 0
- 2026Transfer Learning from Foundational Optimization Embeddings to Unsupervised SAT Representations16 Apr 2026
- 2025Structure based SAT dataset for analysing GNN generalisation17 Feb 2025
- 2024AutoSAT: Automatically Optimize SAT Solvers via Large Language Models16 Feb 2024
- 2023G4SATBench: Benchmarking and Advancing SAT Solving with Graph Neural Networks29 Sep 2023
- 2023Using deep learning to construct stochastic local search SAT solvers with performance bounds20 Sep 2023
- 2023Machine Learning for SAT: Restricted Heuristics and New Graph Representations18 Jul 2023
- 2023HardSATGEN: Understanding the Difficulty of Hard SAT Formula Generation and A Strong Structure-Hardness-Aware Baseline4 Feb 2023
- 2022Denoising Diffusion for Sampling SAT Solutions30 Nov 2022
- 2022Machine Learning Methods in Solving the Boolean Satisfiability Problem2 Mar 2022
- 2021NeuroBack: Improving CDCL SAT Solving using Graph Neural Networks26 Oct 2021
- 2021LIME: Learning Inductive Bias for Primitives of Mathematical Reasoning15 Jan 2021