The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SATzilla: Portfolio-based Algorithm Selection for SAT
Open accessAbstract
It has been widely observed that there is no single "dominant" SAT solver; instead, different solvers perform best on different instances. Rather than following the traditional approach of choosing the best solver for a given class of instances, we advocate making this decision online on a per-instance basis. Building on previous work, we describe SATzilla, an automated approach for constructing per-instance algorithm portfolios for SAT that use so-called empirical hardness models to choose among their constituent solvers. This approach takes as input a distribution of problem instances and a set of component solvers, and constructs a portfolio optimizing a given objective function (such as mean runtime, percent of instances solved, or score in a competition). The excellent performance of SATzilla was independently verified in the 2007 SAT Competition, where our SATzilla07 solvers won three gold, one silver and one bronze medal. In this article, we go well beyond SATzilla07 by making the portfolio construction scalable and completely automated, and improving it by integrating local search solvers as candidate solvers, by predicting performance score instead of runtime, and by using hierarchical hardness models that take into account different types of SAT instances. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these new techniques in extensive experimental results on data sets including instances from the most recent SAT competition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2001) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(00)00081-3 · Cited by 461
Cited by
Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration
Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2011) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25566-3_40 · Cited by 2,469
Self-citationAutomated Algorithm Selection: Survey and Perspectives
Kerschke, P., Hoos, H. H., Neumann, F., & Trautmann, H. (2019) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/evco_a_00242 · Cited by 435
Self-citationMachine Learning for Electronic Design Automation: A Survey
Huang, G., Hu, J., He, Y., Liu, J., Ma, M., Shen, Z., Wu, J., Xu, Y., Zhang, H., Zhong, K., et al. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems · doi:10.1145/3451179 · Cited by 341
Algorithm Selection for Combinatorial Search Problems: A Survey
Kotthoff, L. (2016) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50137-6_7 · Cited by 270
Benchmarking in Optimization: Best Practice and Open Issues
Bartz-Beielstein, T., Doerr, C., Berg, D. V. D., Bossek, J., Chandrasekaran, S., Eftimov, T., Fischbach, A., Kerschke, P., La Cava, W., Lopez-Ibanez, M., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.03488 · Cited by 214
Metadata
- Authors
- Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
- Publisher
- AI Access Foundation
- Published
- 2008-07-01
- Volume
- 32
- Pages
- 565-606
- ISSN
- 1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2147148915
- Cited by
- 857
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 56.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SATzilla: Portfolio-based Algorithm Selection for SAT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1613/jair.2490
- The paper
- Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2008). SATzilla: Portfolio-based Algorithm Selection for SAT. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2490
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.