Skip to main content

Empirical Study of the Behavior of Conflict Analysis in CDCL Solvers

  • Conference paper
Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8124))

Abstract

The Conflict Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers are very effective in solving large and numerous crafted and industrial instances. Paradoxically, we do not know much about the reasons for their effectiveness and their running is hard to trace. This paper participates in the quest to understand the CDCL solvers. Specifically, we empirically study the behavior of one of their essential components which is the conflict analysis module. We show that this module returns generally a relevant backjump level whatever the analyzed clause. We also classify the falsified clauses according to their capacity to produce pertinent learned clauses. We use this classification to induce the apparition of specific clauses in the implication graph by ordering the list of clauses watched by the propagated literals. Finally, we advance some explanations on the effectiveness of CDCL solvers.

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

Access this chapter

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., Bordeaux, L., Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Sais, L.: A Generalized Framework for Conflict Analysis. In: Kleine Büning, H., Zhao, X. (eds.) SAT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4996, pp. 21–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. 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 

  7. Z. Fu, Y. Mahajan, S. Malik. New Features of the SAT’04 Version of zChaff. In SAT 2004 Competition. Solver Descriptions (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Kautz, H.: Boosting Combinatorial Search Through Randomization. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1998), pp. 431–437. AAAI Press (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Huang, J.: The Effect of Restarts on the Efficiency of Clause Learning. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), pp. 2318–2323 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Katsirelos, G., Simon, L.: Eigenvector Centrality in Industrial SAT Instances. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7514, pp. 348–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: Annual ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp. 530–535. ACM (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Silva, J.P.M., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Computers 48(5), 506–521 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Habet, D., Toumi, D. (2013). Empirical Study of the Behavior of Conflict Analysis in CDCL Solvers. In: Schulte, C. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8124. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40627-0_50

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40627-0_50

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40626-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40627-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics