Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning Rate Based Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2016 (SAT 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9710))

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a framework for viewing solver branching heuristics as optimization algorithms where the objective is to maximize the learning rate, defined as the propensity for variables to generate learnt clauses. By viewing online variable selection in SAT solvers as an optimization problem, we can leverage a wide variety of optimization algorithms, especially from machine learning, to design effective branching heuristics. In particular, we model the variable selection optimization problem as an online multi-armed bandit, a special-case of reinforcement learning, to learn branching variables such that the learning rate of the solver is maximized. We develop a branching heuristic that we call learning rate branching or LRB, based on a well-known multi-armed bandit algorithm called exponential recency weighted average and implement it as part of MiniSat and CryptoMiniSat. We upgrade the LRB technique with two additional novel ideas to improve the learning rate by accounting for reason side rate and exploiting locality. The resulting LRB branching heuristic is shown to be faster than the VSIDS and conflict history-based (CHB) branching heuristics on 1975 application and hard combinatorial instances from 2009 to 2014 SAT Competitions. We also show that CryptoMiniSat with LRB solves more instances than the one with VSIDS. These experiments show that LRB improves on state-of-the-art.

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 EPUB and 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

References

  1. Ansótegui, C., Giráldez-Cru, J., Levy, J.: The community structure of SAT formulas. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 410–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Jont Conference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI 2009, pp. 399–404. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Refining restarts strategies for SAT and UNSAT. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7514, pp. 118–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Glucose 2.3 in the SAT 2013 Competition. In: Proceedings of SAT Competition 2013, pp. 42–43 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biere, A.: Adaptive restart strategies for conflict driven SAT solvers. In: Kleine Büning, H., Zhao, X. (eds.) SAT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4996, pp. 28–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Biere, A.: Lingeling, Plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010. FMV Report Series Technical report 10(1) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Biere, A., Fröhlich, A.: Evaluating CDCL variable scoring schemes. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 405–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, R.G.: Exponential smoothing for predicting demand. Oper. Res. 5, 145–145 (1957)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cadar, C., Ganesh, V., Pawlowski, P.M., Dill, D.L., Engler, D.R.: EXE: automatically generating inputs of death. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2006, pp. 322–335. ACM, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carvalho, E., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Using rewarding mechanisms for improving branching heuristics. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Erev, I., Roth, A.E.: Predicting how people play games: reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. Am. Econ. Rev. 88(4), 848–881 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fröhlich, A., Biere, A., Wintersteiger, C., Hamadi, Y.: Stochastic local search for satisfiability modulo theories. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2015, pp. 1136–1143. AAAI Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gershman, R., Strichman, O.: HaifaSat: a new robust SAT solver. In: Ur, S., Bin, E., Wolfsthal, Y. (eds.) HVC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3875, pp. 76–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: a fast and robust sat-solver. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(12), 1549–1561 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeroslow, R.G., Wang, J.: Solving propositional satisfiability problems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 1(1–4), 167–187 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Lagoudakis, M.G., Littman, M.L.: Learning to select branching rules in the DPLL procedure for satisfiability. Electron. Notes Discrete Math. 9, 344–359 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Poupart, P., Czarnecki, K.: Exponential recency weighted average branching heuristic for SAT solvers. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Zulkoski, E., Zaman, A., Czarnecki, K.: Understanding VSIDS branching heuristics in conflict-driven clause-learning SAT solvers. In: Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Zulkoski, E., Zaman, A., Czarnecki, K. (eds.) HVC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9434, pp. 225–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26287-1_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Loth, M., Sebag, M., Hamadi, Y., Schoenauer, M.: Bandit-based search for constraint programming. In: Schulte, C. (ed.) CP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8124, pp. 464–480. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Marques-Silva, J.: The impact of branching heuristics in propositional satisfiability algorithms. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds.) EPIA 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1695, pp. 62–74. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP-a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design, ICCAD 1996, pp. 220–227. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC 2001, pp. 530–535. ACM, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Newsham, Z., Ganesh, V., Fischmeister, S., Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Impact of community structure on SAT solver performance. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 252–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. Rintanen, J.: Planning and SAT. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability, vol. 185, pp. 483–504. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ryan, L.: Efficient Algorithms for Clause-Learning SAT Solvers. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Soos, M.: CryptoMiniSat v4. In: SAT Competition, p. 23 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stump, A., Sutcliffe, G., Tinelli, C.: StarExec: a cross-community infrastructure for logic solving. In: Demri, S., Kapur, D., Weidenbach, C. (eds.) IJCAR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8562, pp. 367–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, vol. 1. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yechiam, E., Busemeyer, J.R.: Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision making. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12(3), 387–402 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design, ICCAD 2001, pp. 279–285. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

    Jia Hui Liang, Vijay Ganesh, Pascal Poupart & Krzysztof Czarnecki

Authors
  1. Jia Hui Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vijay Ganesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pascal Poupart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Krzysztof Czarnecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jia Hui Liang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France

    Nadia Creignou

  2. Université d'Artois, Lens, France

    Daniel Le Berre

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Poupart, P., Czarnecki, K. (2016). Learning Rate Based Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2016. SAT 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9710. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40969-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40970-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation