Category Archives: Tools

Tools developed by me

Checking Uniform-Like Samplers

SAT, SMT, Tools, ,

Uniform sampling is pretty simple: there are a set of solutions to a set of equations, and I want you to give me N solutions uniformly at random. Say, I have a set of equations that only has the solutions x=1…6, and I ask you to give me solutions uniformly at random. In this case, if the system is not cheating, it should give me solutions exactly like a random dice would give: 1..6, each with the same probability of 1/6. Now, if you give me nothing but 1’s I’d be slightly confused, and eventually would think you may be trying to cheat.

Uniformity is useful not only in gambling, but also e.g. if you want to make sure to cover a good chunk of the potential states in a system. Say, your equations describe how a program can run. Now, uniform solutions to these equations will be examples of the state space of your program. If you want to check that your system is in most cases doing the right thing, you can ask for uniform solutions at random and check the states for inconsistencies or unexpected behaviors.

Uniform Sampling of CNFs

One type of equations that is quite popular is to have all variables boolean (i.e. True/False), and equations being nothing but an “AND of ORs”, i.e. something like: “(a OR b) AND (b OR c OR d) AND (-f OR -g)”. These types of equations, also known as CNF, can express quite complicate things, e.g. (parts of) computer programs, logical circuits (e.g. parts of CPUs), and more. What’s nice about CNF is that there are many different tools to convert your problem language into CNF.

Given CNF as the intermediate language, all you need to do is run a uniform sampler on the CNF, and interpret the samples given your transformation. For example, you could translate your Ethereum cryptocurrency contract into QF_BV logic and blast that to CNF using e.g. the STP solver. Then you can get uniform random examples of the execution of your cryptocurrency contract using e.g. UniGen.

There are many different samplers for CNFs, and they mostly fall into two categories: ones that give guarantees and are hence truly uniform, and ones that don’t give guarantees and therefore fall into what we’ll call uniform-like samplers. These latter samplers tend to be significantly faster than truly uniform samplers, however, they can, and sometimes do, give non-uniform samples. I personally help maintain one truly uniform sampler, UniGen (PDF), and one uniform-like sampler, CMSGen (PDF). Other popular truly uniform samplers include KUS (PDF) and SPUR (PDF).

Catching Uniform-Like Samplers: Barbarik

If I give you a sampler and ask you to tell me if it’s truly uniform or simply uniform-like, what should you do? How should we distinguish one from the other, without looking into the internals of the system? It turns out that this is not a simple question to answer. It is very reasonable to assume that there are e.g. 2^200 solutions, so e.g. trying to prove that a sampler is uniform by saying that it should only output the same sample twice rarely is not really meaningful. In this latter case, you’d need to get approx 2^100 samples from a truly uniform sampler before it will likely give two colliding samples. While a uniform-like sampler may collide at e.g. only 2^60 (i.e. a trillion times earlier), that’s still a lot of computation, and only a single data point.

Doing this efficiently is the question that was on the minds of the authors of Barbarik. Basically, their idea was the following: take a CNF, remove all solutions but two, and blow up these two solutions into equally many solutions each. Say, you find two solutions to a CNF, one BLUE and one RED. Barbarik will take BLUE, make 100 blue balls out of it, and take RED, and make 100 red balls out of it. Then, it will give the CNF with the 200 solutions, half blue, half red, to the sampler under test. Then it asks the sampler to give it a bunch of balls. We of course expect approx 50%-50% red-blue distribution of balls from a truly uniform sampler.

Barbarik fails a solver if it is gives a distribution too far away from the 50%-50% we’d expect. Barbarik runs this check many times, with different example blue/red solutions that are “blown up” to multiple solutions. Given different base CNFs, and many tries, it is possible to differentiate the good from the bad… most of the time:

If you take a look at the table above, QuickSampler and STS, both uniform-like samplers, are rejected by Barbarik given 50 different CNFs. In contrast, UniGen survives all 50 tests with flying colors. Notice, however, that CMGen also survived all tests.

The Birth of CMSGen

When Barbarik was being created, I was fortunate enough to be present, and so I decided to tweak my SAT solver, CryptoMiniSat purely using command-line parameters, until Barbarik could not distinguish it from a truly uniform sampler. This, in my view, showcased how extremely important a test system was: I actually had a bug in CryptoMiniSat’s randomization that Barbarik clearly showed and I had to fix to get higher quality samples. We called the resulting uniform-like sampler CMSGen, and it was used in the function synthesis tool Manthan (PDF), that blew all other function synthesis system out of the water, thanks to its innovative design and access to high quality, fast samples from CMSGen:

Notice that within 200 seconds Manthan outperformed all other function synthesis systems, even if we give the other system 7000 seconds to work with. If you are interested in the details of this crazy improvement over previous state-of-the-art, check out the slides here or the video here (these are all work of my coworkers, I am not an author).

While CMSGen was clearly fast and powerful, it bothered me endlessly that Barbarik couldn’t demonstrate that it wasn’t a truly uniform sampler. This eventually lead to the development of ScalBarbarik.

The Birth of ScalBarbarik

Since CMSGen passed all the tests of Barbarik, we had to come up with a new trick to distinguish it from truly uniform samplers. ScalBarbarik‘s (PDF) underlying system is still the same as Barbarik: we take a CNF, take 2 samples from it, and blow both of these samples up to a certain number. However, how we blow them up is where the trick lies. Before, they were both blown up the same way into solutions that are equally easy/hard to find. However, this time around, we’ll make one of the solution types much harder to find than the other. For this, we’ll use Vegard Nossum’s SHA-1 CNF generator (PDF) to force the system to reverse a partial, reduced-round SHA-1 hash, with some fixed inputs & outputs. This allows us to both change the complexity of the problem and the number of solutions to it rather easily.

While one set of solutions will be hard to find, the other ones will be trivial to find — if one special variable is set to TRUE, the finding a set of solutions is trivial But when it’s set to FALSE, the system has to reverse a reduce-round SHA-1. The logic behind this is that the uniform-like systems will likely be finding the easy solutions with much higher probability than the hard solutions, so they will sample much more unevenly. Indeed that’s the case:

Note that as the hardness parameter is increased, CMSGen is rejected more and more often, and eventually it’s rejected for all CNFs. Also interesting to note is that QuickSampler and STS get both rejected, as before, but this time around, STS gets rejected for all 50 CNFs, rather than for only 36 out of 50. In other words, ScalBarbarik is overall a stronger/better distinguisher.

Conclusions

With the birth of Barbarik, a set of uniform-like testers were shown to be less than ideal, and a new, more robust near-uniform sampler was born, CMSGen. But as a the gauntlet has been throw down by CMSGen, a new tool emerged, ScalBarbarik, to help find the non-truly uniform samplers. With this cycle in mind, I hope that new, more elaborate, and higher-quality uniform-like samplers will emerge that will be able to beat ScalBarbarik at its own game, improving the quality of the sampling while maintaining the speed advantage that uniform-like samplers enjoy over truly uniform samplers. With better uniform-like sampling tools, hopefully we’ll be able to make headway in automated test case generation (imagine having it as part of all development IDEs), higher performance function synthesis, and hopefully even more diverse areas of interest for the general public.

CMSGen, a Fast Uniform-Like Sampler

Research, SAT, Tools,

Uniform sampling is a problem where you are given a solution space and you have to present solutions uniformly, at random. In some cases, this is quite simple, say, for the lotto. Just pick 5 random numbers from a box and we are done! For the lotto the solution space is very easy to generate. However, when there are constraints on the solution space, it starts to get tricky.

Let’s say that I have a function I want to test, but the input to the function has some real-world constraints like e.g. the 1st parameter must be larger than the second, the 2nd parameter must be divisible by the 3rd etc. If I want to test that this function operates correctly, one way to do it is to generate 100 uniformly random inputs that don’t violate any of the constraints, run the function, and see if all is OK. For this, I need a fast way of generating uniform samples given the constraints on the solution space.

Sampler speed vs. accuracy

There have been many samplers proposed in the literature. I personally have worked on one called UniGen, a guaranteed approximate probabilistic sampler, meaning that it’ll give approximately uniform samples most of the time, and we have a proof to back this up. It’s a great sampler and will work very fast on many instances. However, for really complex solution spaces, it can have trouble. Say, you want to generate interesting test inputs for your deep learning algorithm. Deep neural networks tend to be extremely complex when translated to binary constraints, so UniGen will likely not be fast enough. It would give very good quality samples (i.e. properly uniform samples), but if it’s too slow, we may want to exchange quality of samples for speed of generation.

There are two well-known samplers that are supposed to generate uniform samples on complex solution spaces, QuickSampler (code), and STS (code), but give no guarantees, let’s call these “uniform-like” samplers. Unfortunately, the paper by Chakraborty et al and its resulting code Barbarik showed that these uniform-like samplers are highly non-uniform. Barbarik is a pretty neat idea that basically constructs solution spaces with known solution distributions and then asks the sampler to generate uniform samples. Knowing the solution space, Barbarik can then verify how non-uniform the sampler is. Imagine having a box with 1000 balls, half of them blue and the other half green. Now if I ask the sampler to give me 50 balls at random, and all of them are green, I’d be a bit surprised to say the least. It’d be like the 5-lottery having the same numbers 3 times in a row. Possible, but… not very likely. If I do this experiment 100 times, and I always get 50 green balls, it’s fair to conclude that the sampler is not uniform.

Our new uniform-like sampler, CMSGen

Given an effective tester, Barbarik, we (Priyanka Golia, Sourav Chakraborty, Kuldeep S. Meel, and myself) thought perhaps we can follow the nowadays very successful test-driven development (TDD) methodology. All we have to do is to make our sampler pass the test of Barbarik, while being at least as fast as STS/QuickSampler, and we’ll be good to go. In fact, given Barbarik, it only took about a week of playing around with CryptoMiniSat’s options to beat both STS and QuickSampler in both accuracy and speed. This speaks volumes to how important it is to have a robust, reliable, and fast testing framework that can give immediate feedback about the quality of samples generated.

Our new uniform-like sampler, based on CryptoMiniSat, is called CMSGen (research paper here), and effectively takes CyrptoMiniSat and applies the following set of changes, through pre-set command line options:

  • Pick polarities at random. Normally, SAT solvers use polarity caching scheme, but of course we want uniform samples over all the search space, so we need to pick polarities at random.
  • Branch on variables at random. Normally, SAT solver branch on variables that will most likely lead to a conflict to maximize search efficiency (the VSIDS heuristic). However, we want to explore the solution space as evenly as possible, and so we want to approach the solution space from as many angles as possible. If you think about the search space as an N-dimensional binary cube, then we are trying to approach this cube as any ways as possible.
  • Turn off all pre- and inprocessing. Pre and inprocessing in SAT solvers are used to minimize the instance, transforming it into something easier to solve, e.g. through Bounded Variable Elimination. We later reconstruct a viable solution based on the solution to the transformed instance. However, the transformed instance may (and often will!) have a very different solution space. We cannot have that, so we must turn this off. To be fair, some pre- and inprocessing could be left intact, e.g. subsumption and self-subsuming elimination, perhaps a future paper :)
  • Restart at static intervals. Restarts are nowadays often dynamic in modern SAT solvers, or even if not dynamic, then follow a non-regular pattern. However, that could disturb how we find solution. Imagine, let’s say that solutions with variable A set to TRUE are very easy to find, but solutions with FALSE are very hard to find. What will happen? Well, in restarts where A was randomly set to TRUE, we’ll always quickly find a solution and output it. But for restarts when A was randomly set to FALSE, the system would struggle to find a solution, and after some conflicts, it will simply restart into a status where hopefully A is set to TRUE, and it can find a solution again. It is quite clear to see that this will lead to serious issues with sampling quality. Hence, we set an adjustable but static restart interval of 100 conflicts, with higher values typically leading to more uniform samples.

Performance of CMSGen

Performance of the system is on the ridiculous scale in comparison with other samplers:

When it comes to 2-wise coverage, i.e. the quality of samples, the data speaks for itself (note, UniGen is missing here because it was too slow):

Note that between STS and QuickSampler, STS is both the more uniform sampler, but also the slower one. CMSGen overcomes this limitation: it’s both faster than QuickSampler, and more uniform than STS.

And of course, the Barbarik tester gives “Accept” on CMSGen much more often than on STS or QuickSampler:

Conclusion

If you need non-guaranteed uniform but fast sampling, I’d go and try out CMSGen. It’s really a completely different beast. It’s not a guaranteed uniform sampler, but it’s incredibly effective. In fact, it’s so effective and works so well, it took me a full year to figure out how best to generate problems for it where it wouldn’t be uniform. But that’s another paper, and another blog post! In the meantime, the sampler is here, go check it out!

Bosphorus, an ANF and CNF simplifier and converter

Research, Tools

I am happy to finally release a piece of work that I have started many years ago at Security Research Labs (many thanks to Karsten Nohl there). Back in the days, it helped us to break multiple real-world ciphers. The released system is called Bosphorus and has been released with major, game-changing work by Davin Choo and Kian Ming A. Chai from DSO National Laboratories Singapore and great help by Kuldeep Meel from NUS. The paper will be published at the DATE 2019 conference.

ANFs and CNFs

Algebraic Normal Form is a form that is used by most cryptographers to describe symmetric ciphers, hash algorithms, and lately a lot of post-quantum asymmetric ciphers. It’s a very simple notation that basically looks like this: 

x1 ⊕ x2 ⊕ x3 = 0
x1 * x2 ⊕ x2 * x3 + 1 = 0

Where “⊕” represents XOR and “*” represents the AND operator. So the first line here is an XOR of binary variables x1, x2 and x3 and their XOR must be equal to 0. The second line means that “(x1 AND x2) XOR (x2 AND x3)” must be equal to 1. This normal form allows to see a bunch of interesting things. For example, it allows us to see the so-called “maximum degree” of the set of equations, where the degree is the maximum number of variables AND-ed together in one line. The above set of equations has a maximum degree of 2, as (x1*x2) is of degree 2. Degrees can often be a good indicator for the complexity of a problem.

What’s good about ANFs is that there are a number of well-known algorithms to break problems described in them. For example, one can do (re)linearization and Gauss-Jordan elimination, or one could run Grobner-basis algorithms such as F4/F5 on it. Sometimes, the ANFs can also be solved by converting them to another normal form, Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF), used by SAT solvers. The CNF normal form looks like:

x1 V x2 V x3
-x1 V x3

Where x1, x2 and x3 are binary variables, “V” is the logical OR, and each line must be equal to TRUE. Using CNF is interesting, because the solvers used to solve them, SAT solvers, typically provide a different set of trade-offs for solving than ANF problem solvers. SAT solvers tend to use more CPU time but a lot less memory, sometimes making problems viable to solve in the “real world”. Whereas sometimes breaking of a cipher is enough to be demonstrated on paper, it also happens that one wants to break a cipher in the real world.

Bridging and Simplifying

Bosphorus is I believe a first of its kind system that allows ANFs to be simplified using both CNF- and ANF-based systems. It can also convert between the two normal forms and can act both as an ANF and a CNF preprocessor, like SatELite (by Een and Biere) was for CNF. I believe this makes Bosphorus unique and also uniquely useful, especially if you are working on ANFs.

Bosphorus uses an iterative architecture that performs the following set of steps, either until it runs out of time or until fixedpoint:

  1. Replace variables and propagate constants in the ANF
  2. Run limited Extended Linarization (XL) and inject back unit and binary XORs
  3. Run limited ElimLin and inject back unit and binary XORs
  4. Convert to CNF, run a SAT solver for a limited number of conflicts and inject back unit and binary (and potentially longer) XORs

In other words, the system is an iterative simplifier/preprocessor that invokes multiple reasoning systems to try to simplify the problem as much as possible. It can outright solve the system, as most of these reasoning systems are complete, but the point is to run them only to a certain limit and inject back into the ANF the easily “digestible” information. The simplified ANF can then either be output as an ANF or a CNF.

Bosphorus can also take a CNF as input, perform the trivial transformation of it to ANF and then treat it as an ANF. This allows the CNF to be simplified using techniques previously unavailable to CNF systems, such as XL.

ANF to CNF Conversion

I personally think that ANF-to-CNF conversion is actually not that hard, and that’s why there hasn’t been too much academic effort devoted to it. However, it’s an important step without which a lot of opportunities would be missed.

The implemented system contains a pretty advanced ANF-to-CNF converter, using Karnaugh tables through Espresso, XOR cutting, monomial reuse, etc. It should give you a pretty optimal CNF for all ANFs. So you can use Bosphorus also just as an ANF-to-CNF converter, though it’s so much more.

Final Thoughts

What I find coolest about Bosphorus is that it can simplify/preprocess ANF systems so more heavyweight ANF solvers can have a go at them. Its ANF simplification is so powerful, it can even help to solve some CNFs by lifting them to ANF, running the ANF simplifiers, converting it back to CNF, and solving that(!). I believe our initial results, published in the paper, are very encouraging. Further, the system is in a ready-to-use state: there is a Docker image, the source should build without a hitch, and there is even a precompiled Linux binary. Good luck using it, and let me know how it went!

Towards CryptoMiniSat 5.0

SAT, Tools, ,

I have worked a lot on CryptoMiniSat 5.0 in the past months so I thought I’d write a little bit about what I spent my time on.

Amazon AWS

I have put lots of effort into use Amazon AWS service to run CMS. This is necessary in order to compete at the SAT competition where my competitors have access to massive resources, some to clusters having over 20k CPU cores. Competing against that with a 4-core machine like I did last year will simply not cut it.

The system I built has a client-server infrastructure where the server is a very-very small machine (t1.micro) that hands out jobs to very-very beefy client machine(s) (c4.8xlarge with 18 real cores). I need this architecture because the client I use is a so-called spot instance so Amazon can shut it down any time. The server makes sure to keep in mind what has been solved and what needs to be solved next to complete the job. At the finish of the job, both the server and the client shut down. I simply need to issue, e.g. “./launch_server.py –git 82c4e5adce –s3folder newrun –cnfdir satcomp091113 -t 5000” and it will launch the full SAT competition 09+11+13 instances with a 5000s timeout using a specific GIT revision of CryptoMiniSat. When it finishes (in about 4-5 hours), it (should) send me a mail with the command line to use to download all the data from Amazon S3. It’s neat, fast, and literally just one command line to use.

As for how much I have used it, I have spent over $100 on running costs on AWS in the past 2 months. A run like the one above costs about $2. Not super-cheap, but not the end of the world, either.

Testing and continuous integration

I have TravisCI, Coverity, and Coverall integration. These provide continious integration testing, static analysis, and code coverage analysis, respectively. I find TravisCI to be immensely valuable, I would have trouble not having it for a new project. Coverity is also pretty useful, it has actually found some pretty stupid mistakes I have made. Finally, coveralls has a terrible interface but I like the idea of having test code coverage analysis and it encourages me to put more effort into that. For example, it highlights pretty well the areas that I typically break when coding without realizing it. TravisCI usually warns me if there is something bad except when there is no (or too little) coverage. I am also looking into Docker, which would allow for continuous delivery.

Checking against SWDiA5BY

I have integrated the main idea of SWDiA5BY A26 code into CryptoMiniSat. Further, I am in the process of integrating one of thepatches available on the author’s website. I find these patches to be really interesting and using SWDiA5BY A26 as a check against my own system has allowed me to get rid of a lot of bugs. So, I am greatly indebted to the authors of MiniSat, Glucose and SWDiA5BY.

Conclusions

In the past months I have put a lot of effort into cleaning up, fixing, and taking control of CryptoMiniSat in general. There have been over 240 issues filed at github against CryptoMiniSat over the years, and only 7 are currently open. This is a testament to how open and dynamic the solver development is. In case you are interested in helping to develop or have new ideas, don’t hesitate to contact me. Further, if you have any commercial interest in the solver, don’t hesitate to contact me.

CryptoMiniSat 4 released

SAT, Tools, ,

[wpdm_file id=1]
CryptoMiniSat 4 is now available for download. This version brings a number of substantial improvements and picks up speed to be as good as the best solvers out there. It now has a much improved library interface as well as a simple but powerful python interface.

SAT Competition 2014

This release is made ahead of the SAT competition 2014 deadlines so anybody can compete and actually have a chance to win. Unfortunately, the way I see it, it’s not possible to use newer versions of lingeling or riss (see license for for details), MiniSat is rather old and glucose doesn’t have new simplification techniques. If you feel the same way, and you rather not write 30K LoC of code, you might enjoy playing with CryptoMiniSat v4 and submitting it to the competition. You can change as much as you like, it’s LGPLv2 — just don’t call it CryptoMiniSat.

Improvements and techniques

Here is a non-exhaustive list of techniques used in CryptoMiniSat v4:

  • Variable elimination and replacement, strengthening, subsumption, vivification
  • On-the-fly stamping, literal caching, hyper-binary resolution and transitive reduction during failed literal probing
  • Bounded variable addition with hack to allow 2-literal diff
  • DRUP-based unsatisfiable proof logging
  • Gate-based clause shortening and removal
  • XOR recovery and manipulation (NOTE: uses the M4RI library that is GPL, if you want LGPL, compile without it)
  • Precise time- and memory tracking. No time or memory-outs on weird CNFs
  • Precise usefulness tracking of all clauses
  • Clause usefulness-based redundant clause removal. Glues are not used by default, but glues are tracked and can be used (command line option)
  • Variable renumbering and variable number hiding. Thanks to this, XOR clauses are cut and the added variables are transparent to the user.
  • SQL-based data logging and AJAX-based powerful data display
  • And of course many-many more

All of the above are implemented as inprocessing techniques. I do not believe in preprocessing and the solver does not in fact use preprocessing at all — it immediately starts to solve instead. This, as everything else, is configurable and you can change it by passing `’–presimp 1’` as a command-line option. There are a total of 120 command-line options so you can tune the solver as you like.

Python interface

It’s intuitive and fun to use:

>>> from pycryptosat import Solver
>>> s = Solver()
>>> s.add_clause([-1])
>>> s.add_clause([1, 2])
>>> sat, solution = s.solve()
>>> print sat
True
>>> print solution[1]
False
>>> print solution[2]
True

You can even have assumptions:

>>> from pycryptosat import Solver
>>> s = Solver()
>>> s.add_clause([-1])
>>> sat, solution = s.solve([1])
>>> print sat
False
>>> sat, solution = s.solve()
>>> print sat
True

All the power of the SAT solver in a very accessible manner. XOR clauses are trivial, too:

>>> from pycryptosat import Solver
>>> s = Solver()
>>> s.add_xor_clause([1, 2], false)
>>> sat, solution = s.solve([1])
>>> print sat
True
>>> print solution[1]
True
>>> print solution[2]
True

Where the second argument is the right hand side (RHS) of the equation v1 XOR v2 = False.

C++ interface

Usage is pretty simple, and the header files have been significantly cleaned up:

#include 
#include 
#include 
using std::vector;
using namespace CMSat;

int main()
{
    Solver solver;
    vector clause;

    //adds "1 0"
    clause.push_back(Lit(0, false));
    solver.add_clause(clause);

    //adds "-2 0"
    clause.clear();
    clause.push_back(Lit(1, true));
    solver.add_clause(clause);

    //adds "-1 2 3 0"
    clause.clear();
    clause.push_back(Lit(0, true));
    clause.push_back(Lit(1, false));
    clause.push_back(Lit(2, false));
    solver.add_clause(clause);

    lbool ret = solver.solve();
    assert(ret == l_True);
    assert(solver.get_model()[0] == l_True);
    assert(solver.get_model()[1] == l_False);
    assert(solver.get_model()[2] == l_True);

    return 0;
}

Some suggestions where you can improve the solver to compete

Here is a non-exhaustive list of things that you can improve to win at the competition:

  • Add your own weird idea. You can add new variables if you like, use the occurrence lists already built, and take advantage of all the datastructures (such as stamps, literal cache) already present.
  • Tune the parameters. I only have exactly one i7-4770 to tune the parameters. You might have more. All parameters are accessible from command line, so tuning should be trivial.
  • Use glues to clean clauses. Or use a combination of glues and usefulness metrics. All the metrics are at your fingertips.
  • Make bounded variable addition work for learnt clauses. I could never figure this one out.
  • Improve the ordering of variable elimination. Makes a huge difference.
  • Try a different approach: I use the ‘heavy’ approach where I don’t remove all clauses that I can as I like strong propagation properties. You might try the ‘light’ approach where everything is removed if possible. Just set variable elimination to 100% and add blocked clause elimination. It might work.

For example, below is the code that calculates which clause should be cleaned or kept. You can clearly see how easily this can be changed using the data elements below:

bool Solver::reduceDBStructPropConfl::operator() (const ClOffset xOff, const ClOffset yOff) {
    const Clause* x = clAllocator.getPointer(xOff);
    const Clause* y = clAllocator.getPointer(yOff);

    uint64_t x_useful = x->stats.propagations_made
                        + x->stats.conflicts_made;
    uint64_t y_useful = y->stats.propagations_made
                        + y->stats.conflicts_made;
    return x_useful < y_useful;
}

//the data you can use to hack the above calculation:
struct ClauseStats
{
    uint32_t glue;    ///

If you were thinking about submitting your weird hack to the MiniSat hacktrack, think about doing the same to CrytoMiniSat v4. You might actually win the real competition. You can change as much as you like.


I will submit a description of CryptoMiniSat v4, your description can simply say that it's the same except for xyz that you changed. The point of the descriptions is so that people can read what you did and why and then comprehend the results in that light. Just explain carefully what you did and why, and you should be fine.


Thanks


Many-many thanks to Martin Maurer who has submitted over 100 bug reports through the GitHub issue system. Kudos to all who have helped me use, debug and improve the solver. To name just a few: Vegard Nossum, Martin Albrecht, Karsten Nohl, Luca Melette, Vijay Ganesh and Robert Aston.