Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CDCL Solver Additions: Local Look-Ahead, All-Unit-UIP Learning and On-the-Fly Probing

  • Conference paper
KI 2014: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (KI 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8736))

  • 1184 Accesses

Abstract

Many applications can be tackled with modern CDCL SAT solvers. However, most of todays CDCL solvers guide their search with a simple, but very fast to compute decision heuristic. In contrast to CDCL solvers, SAT solvers that are based on look-ahead procedures spend more time for decisions and with their local reasoning. This paper proposes three light-weight additions to the CDCL algorithm, local look-ahead, all-unit-UIP learning and on-the-fly-probing which allow the search to find unit clauses that are hard to find by unit propagation and clause learning alone. With the additional reasoning steps of these techniques the resulting algorithm is able to solve SAT formulas that cannot be solved by the original algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI 2009, pp. 399–404. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Pasadena (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Glucose 2.3 in the SAT 2013 competition. In: Balint, et al. (eds.) [3], pp. 42–43

    Google Scholar 

  3. Balint, A., Belov, A., Heule, M.J., Järvisalo, M. (eds.): Proceedings of SAT Challenge 2013, Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B, vol. B-2013-1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biere, A.: PrecoSAT system description (2009), http://fmv.jku.at/precosat/preicosat-sc09.pdf

  5. Biere, A.: Lingeling, Plingeling and Treengeling entering the SAT competition 2013. In: Balint, et al. (eds.) [3], pp. 51–52

    Google Scholar 

  6. Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Crato, N., Kautz, H.: Heavy-tailed phenomena in satisfiability and constraint satisfaction problems. J. Autom. Reason. 24(1-2), 67–100 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Großmann, P., Hölldobler, S., Manthey, N., Nachtigall, K., Opitz, J., Steinke, P.: Solving periodic event scheduling problems with SAT. In: Jiang, H., Ding, W., Ali, M., Wu, X. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7345, pp. 166–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Han, H.J., Jin, H.S., Somenzi, F.: Clause simplification through dominator analysis. In: DATE, pp. 143–148. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Han, H., Somenzi, F.: On-the-fly clause improvement. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 209–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B.: Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier Science, San Diego (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Heule, M., van Maaren, H.: Look-ahead based SAT solvers. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], pp. 155–184

    Google Scholar 

  16. Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M., Biere, A.: Efficient CNF simplification based on binary implication graphs. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 201–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoos, H., Sttzle, T.: Stochastic Local Search: Foundations & Applications. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Huang, J.: The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In: IJCAI, pp. 2318–2323 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In: Coello Coello, C.A. (ed.) LION 2011. LNCS, vol. 6683, pp. 507–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Jabbour, S., Lonlac, J., Saïs, L.: Adding new bi-asserting clauses for faster search in modern sat solvers. In: Frisch, A.M., Gregory, P. (eds.) SARA. AAAI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jeroslow, R.G., Wang, J.: Solving propositional satisfiability problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 1, 167–187 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Katebi, H., Sakallah, K.A., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Empirical study of the anatomy of modern SAT solvers. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 343–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Probing-based preprocessing techniques for propositional satisfiability. In: ICTAI 2003, pp. 105–110. IEEE Computer Society (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Manthey, N.: The SAT solver RISS3G at SC 2013. In: Balint, et al. (eds.) [3], pp. 72–73

    Google Scholar 

  25. Manthey, N.: Coprocessor 2.0 – A flexible CNF simplifier - (tool presentation). In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 436–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Marques-Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 4, pp. 131–153

    Google Scholar 

  27. Marques Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48(5), 506–521 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: DAC 2001, pp. 530–535. ACM, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Parkes, A.J.: Clustering at the phase transition. In: AAAI 1997/IAAI 1997, pp. 340–345. AAAI Press (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Piette, C., Hamadi, Y., Sais, L.: Vivifying propositional clausal formulae. In: ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 178, pp. 525–529 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: A lightweight component caching scheme for satisfiability solvers. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 294–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. van der Tak, P., Ramos, A., Heule, M.: Reusing the assignment trail in cdcl solvers. JSAT 7(4), 133–138 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wieringa, S., Heljanko, K.: Concurrent clause strengthening. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 116–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.W., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in boolean satisfiability solver. In: International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 279–285 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Group, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

    Norbert Manthey

Authors
  1. Norbert Manthey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Bremen, Germany

    Carsten Lutz

  2. University of New South Wales, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Michael Thielscher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Manthey, N. (2014). CDCL Solver Additions: Local Look-Ahead, All-Unit-UIP Learning and On-the-Fly Probing. In: Lutz, C., Thielscher, M. (eds) KI 2014: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. KI 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8736. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11206-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11206-0_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11205-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11206-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation