Parallel solving #7852
Merged
Parallel solving #7852
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…#7743 Signed-off-by: Nikolaj Bjorner <nbjorner@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Nikolaj Bjorner <nbjorner@microsoft.com>
…pressions Signed-off-by: Nikolaj Bjorner <nbjorner@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Nikolaj Bjorner <nbjorner@microsoft.com>
axioms for len(substr(...)) escaped due to nested rewriting
add simplification rule for at(x, offset) = "" Introducing j just postpones some rewrites that prevent useful simplifications. Z3 already uses common sub-expressions. The example highlights some opportunities for simplification, noteworthy at(..) = "". The example is solved in both versions after adding this simplification.
Signed-off-by: Nikolaj Bjorner <nbjorner@microsoft.com>
add pre-processing simplification
fix incrementality bugs by allowing destructive updates during saturation at the cost of redoing saturation after a pop.
…digm, need to debug as I am getting segfault still
…ven if we don't split it further
…approach is actually unsound, but I am going to focus on the PQ approach for now since it has more potential for SAT problems with the right hardness metric
… march, need to re-examine/debug/evaluate
…head.cpp implementations. they seem to be buggy, need to revisit. also set up experimental params for running on polytest
…lved but others remain
…. update explicit-hardness with bugfixes. now it works but i am not sure there is a good perf increase based on my handpicked examples. i tried several variations of hardness ratios as you can see commented out. there are debug prints still commented out. also return_cubes now takes in a single cube instead of a list C_worker to align with the single-cube hardness/should_split metrics, it doesn't change anything bc we only pass in 1 cube to begin with
…it compiles but segfaults immediately so it needs a lot of debugging
…and active status. other things are still wrong
…tead marks all such 'removed' nodes as inactive
… only working in the frontier determined by their split atoms, and only overlapping frontiers once they've exhausted their own
…not crash. also fix a couple of things in get_next_cube. also, setting k=1 for split atoms might be better, not sure
…ier when we just started a new frontier (like if we're at the empty cube at the root)
ilanashapiro
force-pushed
the
parallel-solving
branch
from
a8c10c1 to
d24389a
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
add an optimization (or what is hopefully an optimization) about threads only working in the frontier determined by their split atoms, and only overlapping frontiers once they've exhausted their own. the logic is getting kind of complicated but the goal is the same: each thread should always work on the next most similar cube to their last cube, and the threads should each work on their own frontier in the tree as determined by their split atoms.
i successfully ran it on 3 test examples, it does better for SAT problems i tested currently