A Native QCDCL Solver vs DepQBF: From 0 vs 4 to a 15–15 Tie, Then 15 vs 18 on Fresh Instances
Dependency Learning, Solution-Flip Search and Universal Expansion, Measured on QBFEVAL'22 With Zero Disagreements.
15 vs 18solved, fresh 100 instances, ours vs DepQBF
0verdict disagreements in every run
26/36dev set after tuning (restart base 50, was 20)
3Organic-Synthesis instances only we solve
- 100-instance set: 15 vs 15 (3 unique each)
- Held-out: 12 vs 16; fresh 100: 15 vs 18: LOSS
- Every DepQBF-only solve is a Hex game: the TRUE side needs short learned cubes
More garmo solvers benchmark results
- Proof-Carrying Max-Cut on a GH200: 67 Biq Mac Optima Proved vs HiGHS's 49
- Weighted MaxSAT on a GH200: From 14/33/50 to 33/38/26 Against NuWLS-c-IBR
- Large-Instance TSP on 16 Arm Cores: 0.692 % → 0.165 % Mean Gap, Still Behind LKH-3
- Vehicle Routing vs PyVRP: a C++ Iterated Local Search Wins 37/26/21 at Equal Budget
- ISPD98 Bisection: a Multilevel FM + Flow Engine Beats KaHyPar and mt-KaHyPar at Equal Budget
- An Evidence-Driven Solver Router: Regret 0.046 vs 0.190 for the Best Single Backend
- A Verified MIP Race: HiGHS, SCIP and GPU Primal Heuristics Against cuOpt on MIPLIB 2017
- Lazy Clause Generation in C++: 39 of 40 Schedules Proved Optimal vs CP-SAT's 20
- Certified GPU Numerics: Every Answer Carries a Checkable Certificate: and Where It Costs
- LABS on a GH200: Exponent 1.24 to the Proven Optimum, Beside the QAOA Exponents
- UNISOLVE 0.16.1: One Solver Platform, 13 Problem Domains, Every Answer Checked
- Four Certified Builds: Toroidal Proofs, Unroutability Certificates, CertBQP and a 235× Batch Service