Skip to main content

Machine Learning-Based Restart Policy for CDCL SAT Solvers

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10929))

Abstract

Restarts are a critically important heuristic in most modern conflict-driven clause-learning (CDCL) SAT solvers. The precise reason as to why and how restarts enable CDCL solvers to scale efficiently remains obscure. In this paper we address this question, and provide some answers that enabled us to design a new effective machine learning-based restart policy. Specifically, we provide evidence that restarts improve the quality of learnt clauses as measured by one of best known clause quality metrics, namely, literal block distance (LBD). More precisely, we show that more frequent restarts decrease the LBD of learnt clauses, which in turn improves solver performance. We also note that too many restarts can be harmful because of the computational overhead of rebuilding the search tree from scratch too frequently. With this trade-off in mind, between that of learning better clauses vs. the computational overhead of rebuilding the search tree, we introduce a new machine learning-based restart policy that predicts the quality of the next learnt clause based on the history of previously learnt clauses. The restart policy erases the solver’s search tree during its run, if it predicts that the quality of the next learnt clause is below some dynamic threshold that is determined by the solver’s history on the given input. Our machine learning-based restart policy is based on two observations gleaned from our study of LBDs of learnt clauses. First, we discover that high LBD percentiles can be approximated with z-scores of the normal distribution. Second, we find that LBDs, viewed as a sequence, are correlated and hence the LBDs of past learnt clauses can be used to predict the LBD of future ones. With these observations in place, and techniques to exploit them, our new restart policy is shown to be effective over a large benchmark from the SAT Competition 2014 to 2017.

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

Buying options

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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Glucose is a popular and competitive CDCL SAT solver often used in experiments because of its efficacy and simplicity (http://www.labri.fr/perso/lsimon/glucose/).

References

  1. MLR source code. https://sites.google.com/a/gsd.uwaterloo.ca/maplesat/mlr

  2. Atserias, A., Fichte, J.K., Thurley, M.: Clause-learning algorithms with many restarts and bounded-width resolution. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 114–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Refining restarts strategies for SAT and UNSAT. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, pp. 118–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Glucose and syrup in the SAT17. In: Proceedings of SAT Competition 2017: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions, pp. 16–17 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Biere, A., Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T.: Handbook of Satisfiability: Volume 185 Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Biere, A.: Lingeling, plingeling and treengeling entering the SAT competition 2013. In: Proceedings of SAT Competition 2013: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions, pp. 51–52 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonet, M.L., Buss, S., Johannsen, J.: Improved separations of regular resolution from clause learning proof systems. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 49, 669–703 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4260

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Buss, S.R., Kolodziejczyk, L.A.: Small stone in pool. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 10(2) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1971, pp. 151–158. ACM, New York (1971). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800157.805047

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Haim, S., Walsh, T.: Restart strategy selection using machine learning techniques. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 312–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Sais, L.: ManySAT: a parallel SAT solver. J. Satisfiability 6, 245–262 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hirsch, E.A., Kojevnikov, A.: UnitWalk: a new SAT solver that uses local search guided by unit clause elimination. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 43(1), 91–111 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0_27

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 1992, pp. 359–363. Wiley, New York (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. CoRR abs/1412.6980 (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Luby, M., Sinclair, A., Zuckerman, D.: Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Inf. Process. Lett. 47(4), 173–180 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  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. Nejati, S., Liang, J.H., Gebotys, C., Czarnecki, K., Ganesh, V.: Adaptive restart and CEGAR-based solver for inverting cryptographic hash functions. In: Paskevich, A., Wies, T. (eds.) VSTTE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10712, pp. 120–131. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72308-2_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Oh, C.: COMiniSatPS the chandrasekhar limit and GHackCOMSPS. In: Proceedings of SAT Competition 2017: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions, pp. 12–13 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers with restarts. In: Gent, I.P. (ed.) CP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5732, pp. 654–668. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramos, A., van der Tak, P., Heule, M.J.H.: Between restarts and backjumps. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 216–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Saitta, L., Sebag, M.: Phase Transitions in Machine Learning, pp. 767–773. Springer, Boston (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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 (LNAI), vol. 8562, pp. 367–373. Springer, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wetzler, N., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt, W.A.: DRAT-trim: efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 422–429. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_31

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jia Hui Liang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Liang, J.H., Oh, C., Mathew, M., Thomas, C., Li, C., Ganesh, V. (2018). Machine Learning-Based Restart Policy for CDCL SAT Solvers. In: Beyersdorff, O., Wintersteiger, C. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2018. SAT 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10929. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94143-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94144-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics