BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Paper detail

Automated Benchmarking of Incremental SAT and QBF Solvers

Incremental SAT and QBF solving potentially yields improvements when sequences of related formulas are solved. An incremental application is usually tailored towards some specific solver and decomposes a problem into incremental solver calls. This hinders the independent comparison of different solvers, particularly when the application program is not available. As a remedy, we present an approach to automated benchmarking of incremental SAT and QBF solvers. Given a collection of formulas in (Q)DIMACS format generated incrementally by an application program, our approach automatically translates the formulas into instructions to import and solve a formula by an incremental SAT/QBF solver. The result of the translation is a program which replays the incremental solver calls and thus allows to evaluate incremental solvers independently from the application program. We illustrate our approach by different hardware verification problems for SAT and QBF solvers.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
Uwe EglyFlorian LonsingJohannes Oetsch
Logic in Computer Science
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Like0Dislike0Score 0

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Save to reading list0
Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Uwe EglyFlorian LonsingJohannes Oetsch

Institutions

No institution affiliation has been imported for this paper yet.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form
Log in to review

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form
Log in to comment

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.