Abstract
Twenty of the programs (solvers) submitted to the SAT 2002 Contest had no disqualifying errors. These solvers were run on 2023 satisfiability problems of varying hardnesses. Each solver was judged by which problems it could solve within the allowed time limit. Twelve solvers were best on some problem — they could solve it and the others could not. Only two solvers could not beat each remaining solver on some problems (where the problems could vary depending on which solver it was trying to beat). Thus, there is evidence that 18 solvers were extremely good. It is interesting to analyze the contest results in a way that groups together solvers with similar strengths and weaknesses. This paper uses the parsimony algorithm to produce a classification of the twenty solvers. The paper also has a second classification, almost the same as the first, for the twenty solvers, updated versions of two solvers, and a fictitious state of the art solver. The contest problems came in three groups, Industrial, Hand Made, and Random. The Random group of problems was about three times as large as the other two together. The classification identifies four groups of solvers (plus a miscellaneous group): weak solvers, incomplete solvers which are very good at some satisfiable Random problems, complete solvers which are very good at most Random problems, and complete solvers which are very good at Industrial and Hand Made problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S. Cocca and R. Monasson, Restart method and exponential acceleration of random 3-SAT instances resolution: A large deviation analysis of the David-Putnam-Loveland-Logemann algorithm (2002).
W.H. Day, D.S. Johnson and D. Sankoff, Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies by compatibility, Systematic Zoology 35 (1986) 224–229.
J. Felsenstein, Phylogenies from molecular sequences: Inferences and reliability, Annu. Rev. Genet. 22 (1988) 521–565.
W.M. Fitch, Toward defining the course of evolution: Minimum change for a specific tree topology, Systematic Zoology 20 (1971) 406–416.
E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov, BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver, in: Design, Automation, and Test in Europe (DATE ‘02) (2002) pp. 142–149; http://eigold.tripod.com.
R.L. Graham and L.R. Foulds, Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in reasonable computational time, Mathematical Biosciences 60 (1982) 133–142.
J.A. Harigan, Minimum evolution fits to a given tree, Biometrics 29 (1973) 53–65.
I. Lynce and J. Marques Silva (2002).
M. Mézard, G. Parsi and R. Zecchina, Analytic and algorithmic solutions of random satisfiablity problems, Science 297 (2002) 812–815.
M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC’01) (2001) pp. 530–535.
P.W. Purdom, Jr., P.G. Bradford, K. Tamura and S. Kumar, Single column discrepancy and dynamic max-mini optimization for quickly finding the most parsimonious evolutionary trees, Bioinformatics 16 (2000) 140–151.
L. Simon, D. Le Berre and E.A. Hirsch, The SAT2002 competition, this issue.
N. Sordis and M. Nei, The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees, Mol. Biol. Evol. 4 (1987) 406–425.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Purdom, P.W., Le Berre, D. & Simon, L. A parsimony tree for the SAT2002 competition. Ann Math Artif Intell 43, 343–365 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-0431-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-0431-7