We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The trojan benchmark CNFs list too many clauses in their DIMACS headers which would cause some solvers to reject them immediately.
This bug is visible in the CCS paper benchmarks which I downloaded from here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yhAX8_pm7jVo0tgx4LGsDs8xoMt_qKix
It looks like total_clauses calculated here: https://github.com/teobaluta/NPAQ/blob/master/mlp2cnf/src/bnn_prop.cpp#L722 should be changed to only count the clauses from the BNNs which are selected by 'which_bnn'.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I think the solver we used did not have this issue - but thanks for reporting this!
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sure, just for the record, I used CaDiCaL, which e.g., reports:
cadical: error: card-trojan_mnist_...: parse error: clause missing
One can get around this using the -f option
-f
teobaluta
No branches or pull requests
The trojan benchmark CNFs list too many clauses in their DIMACS headers which would cause some solvers to reject them immediately.
This bug is visible in the CCS paper benchmarks which I downloaded from here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yhAX8_pm7jVo0tgx4LGsDs8xoMt_qKix
It looks like total_clauses calculated here: https://github.com/teobaluta/NPAQ/blob/master/mlp2cnf/src/bnn_prop.cpp#L722 should be changed to only count the clauses from the BNNs which are selected by 'which_bnn'.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: