Abstract
There are many reasons to think that SAT solvers should be able to exploit formula structure, but no standard techniques in modern CDCL solvers make explicit use of structure. We describe modifications to modern decision and clause-deletion heuristics that exploit formula structure by using variable centrality. We show that these improve the performance of Maple LCM Dist, the winning solver from Main Track of the 2017 SAT Solver competition. In particular, using centrality in clause deletion results in solving 9 more formulas from the 2017 Main Track. We also look at a number of measures of solver performance and learned clause quality, to see how the changes affect solver execution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Satisfiability, branch-width and Tseitin tautologies. In: 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2002), 16–19 November 2002, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 593–603. IEEE (2002)
Ansótegui, C., Bonet, M.L., Giráldez-Cru, J., Levy, J.: Community structure in industrial SAT instances (2016). arXiv:1606.03329 [cs.AI]
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_31
Ansótegui, C., Giráldez-Cru, J., Levy, J., Simon, L.: Using community structure to detect relevant learnt clauses. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 238–254. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_18
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_13
Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern sat solvers. In: 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2009, pp. 399–404, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann (2009)
Balyo, T., Heule, M.J.H., Jarvisalo, M.J.: Proceedings of SAT competition 2016. Technical report, University of Helsinki (2016)
Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow - resolution made simple. In: Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 517–526. ACM (1999)
Cedar, A Compute Canada Cluster. https://docs.computecanada.ca/wiki/Cedar
Compute Canada: Advanced Research Computing (ARC) Systems. https://www.computecanada.ca/
Fortunato, S.: Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep. 486(3–5), 75–174 (2010)
Freeman, L.C.: A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1), 35–41 (1977)
Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Problem structure in the presence of perturbations. In: 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Ninth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, (AAAI 1997, IAAI 1997), 27–31 July 1997, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 221–226. AAAI (1997)
Jamali, S., Mitchell, D.: Improving SAT solver performance with structure-based preferential bumping. In: 3rd Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence (GCAI 2017), Miami, FL, USA, 18–22 October 2017, vol. 50. EPiC, pp. 175–187. EasyChair (2017)
Katsirelos, G., Simon, L.: Eigenvector centrality in industrial SAT instances. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, pp. 348–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_27
Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Poupart, P., Czarnecki, K.: Learning rate based branching heuristic for SAT solvers. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 123–140. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_9
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
Liang, J.H., Hari Govind, V.K., Poupart, P., Czarnecki, K., Ganesh, V.: An Empirical Study of Branching Heuristics Through the Lens of Global Learning Rate. In: Gaspers, S., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10491, pp. 119–135. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66263-3_8
Luo, M., Li, C.-M., Xiao, F., Manyà, F., Lü, Z.: An effective learnt clause minimization approach for CDCL SAT solvers. In: 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia, 19–25 August 2017, pp. 703–711 (2017). ijcai.org
Martins, R., Manquinho, V., Lynce, I.: Community-based partitioning for MaxSAT solving. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 182–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39071-5_14
Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: 38th annual Design Automation Conference (DAC 2001), pp. 530–535. ACM (2001)
NetworkX, Software for complex networks. https://networkx.github.io/
Neves, M., Martins, R., Janota, M., Lynce, I., Manquinho, V.: Exploiting resolution-based representations for MaxSAT solving. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 272–286. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_20
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, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_20
Newsham, Z., Lindsay, W., Ganesh, V., Liang, J.H., Fischmeister, S., Czarnecki, K.: SATGraf: visualizing the evolution of SAT formula structure in solvers. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 62–70. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_6
SAT Competition 2017, July 2017. https://baldur.iti.kit.edu/sat-competition-2017/
Sonobe, T., Kondoh, S., Inaba, M.: Community branching for parallel portfolio SAT solvers. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 188–196. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_14
Sorensson, N., Een, N.: Minisat v1. 13 - a SAT solver with conflict-clause minimization. In: Poster at the 8th Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2005), St. Andrews, UK, 19–23 June 2005
Williams, R., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Backdoors to typical case complexity. In: 18th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI 2003) Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 August 2003, pp. 1173–1178. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)
Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: SATzilla: portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 32, 565–606 (2008)
Acknowledgement
This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jamali, S., Mitchell, D. (2018). Centrality-Based Improvements to CDCL Heuristics. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_8
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)