Skip to main content
Log in

Learning from conflicts in propositional satisfiability

  • Invited Survey
  • Published:
4OR Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learning is a general concept, playing an important role in many Artificial intelligence domains. In this paper, we address the learning paradigm used to explain failures or conflicts encountered during search. This explanation, derived by conflict analysis, and generally expressed as a new constraint, is usually used to dynamically avoid future occurrences of similar situations. Before focusing on clause learning in Boolean satisfiability (SAT), we first overview some important works on this powerful reasoning tool in other domains such as constraint satisfaction and truth maintenance systems. Then, we present a comprehensive survey of the most important works having led to what is called today—conflict driven clause learning (CDCL)—which is one of the key components of modern SAT solvers. In theory, current SAT solvers with clause learning are as powerful as general resolution proof systems. In practice, real-world SAT instances with millions of variables and clauses are now in the scope of this solving paradigm.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Audemard G, Bordeaux L, Hamadi Y, Jabbour S, Sais L (2008) A generalized framework for conflict analysis. In: SAT, pp 21–27

  • Audemard G, Bordeaux L, Hamadi Y, Jabbour S, Sais L (2008) A generalized framework for conflict analysis. Technical Report MSR-TR-2008-34, Microsoft Research, Feb 2008

  • Audemard G, Lagniez J-M, Mazure B, Sais L (2011) On freezing and reactivating learnt clauses. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’2011), pp 188–200

  • Bayardo RJ, Miranker DP (1996) A complexity analysis of space-bounded learning algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. In: In Proceedings of the 13th national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 298–304

  • Bayardo RJ Jr, Schrag RC (1997) Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: AAAI, pp 203–208

  • Biere A, Biere A, Heule M, van Maaren H, Walsh T (2009) Handbook of satisfiability: volume 185 frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Biere A (2008) Adaptive restart strategies for conflict driven sat solvers. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’08), pp 28–33

  • Brisoux L, Gregoire E, Sais L (1999) Improving backtrack search for SAT by means of redundancy. In: International syposium on methodologies for intelligent systems, pp 301–309

  • Bruynooghe M (1981) Solving combinatorial search problems by intelligent backtracking. Inf Process Lett 12(1): 36–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandru V, Hooker J (1999) Optimization methods for logical inference. Wiley, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford JM, Baker AB (1994) Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’94), pp 1092–1097

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechter R (1986) Learning while searching in constraint-satisfaction-problems. In: AAAI, pp 178–185

  • Dechter R (1990) Enhancement schemes for constraint processing: backjumping, learning, and cutset decomposition. Artif Intell 41(3): 273–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J (1979) A truth maintenance system. Artif Intell 12(3): 231–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois O, André P, Boufkhad Y, Carlier Y (1996) Second DIMACS implementation challenge: cliques, coloring and satisfiability. In: DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, chapter SAT vs. UNSAT, vol 26. American Mathematical Society, pp 415–436

  • Een N, Sörensson N (2005) Minisat—a sat solver with conflict-clause minimization. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’05)

  • Eén N, Biere A (2005) Effective preprocessing in sat through variable and clause elimination. In: SAT, pp 61–75

  • Eén N, Sörensson N (2003) An extensible sat-solver. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’03), pp 502–518

  • Frost D, Dechter R (1994) Dead-end driven learning. In: AAAI, pp 294–300

  • Gasching J (1979) Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer science, Carnegie Mellon University

  • Ginsberg ML (1993) Dynamic backtracking. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 1: 25–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes CP, Selman B, Crato N, Kautz HA (2000) Heavy-tailed phenomena in satisfiability and constraint satisfaction problems. J Autom Reasoning 24(1/2): 67–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes CP, Selman B, Kautz HA (1998) Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 431–437

  • Hamadi Y, Jabbour S, Sais L (2009) Learning for dynamic subsumption. In: 21st IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence—ICTAI’09, pp 328–335

  • Hamadi Y, Jabbour S, Sais L (2009) ManySAT: a parallel SAT solver. JSAT 6:245–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Heule M, Järvisalo M, Biere A (2010) Clause elimination procedures for cnf formulas. In: 17th International conference on logic for programming, artificial intelligence, and reasoning (LPAR’10), pp 357–371

  • Heule M, Järvisalo M, Biere A (2011) Efficient cnf simplification based on binary implication graphs. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’11), pp 201–215

  • Hooker J (2000) Logic-based methods for optimization: combining optimization and constraint satisfaction. Wiley, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker JN (1989) Input proofs and rank one cutting planes. INFORMS J Comput 1(3): 137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker JN, Fedjiki C (1990) Branch-and-cut solution of inference problems in propositional logic. Ann Math Artif Intell 1: 123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J (2007) The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In: Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’07), pp 2318–2323

  • Jeroslow RG, Wang J (1990) Solving propositional satisfiability problems. Ann Math Artif Intell 1: 167–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautz HA, Horvitz E, Ruan Y, Gomes CP, Selman B (2002) Dynamic restart policies. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 674–681

  • Li CM, Anbulagan (1997) Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: IJCAI’97, pp 366–371

  • Luby M, Sinclair A, Zuckerman D (1993) Optimal speedup of las vegas algorithms. Inf Process Lett 47: 173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques Silva JP, Sakallah KA (1996) Grasp—a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: ICCAD, pp 220–227

  • Marques-Silva JP, Sakallah KA (1999) Grasp: a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans Comput 48(5): 506–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques-silva JP (1999) The impact of branching heuristics in propositional satisfiability algorithms. In: In 9th Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence EPIA, pp 62–74

  • McAllester DA (1980) An outlook on truth maintenance. AI Memo 551, MIT AI Laboratory, August 1980

  • Morris P (1993) The breakout method for escaping from local minima. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’93), pp 40–45

  • Moskewicz MW, Madigan CF, Zhao Y, Zhang L, Malik S (2001) Chaff: engineering an efficient sat solver. In: DAC, pp 530–535

  • Piette C, Hamadi Y, Sais L (2008) Vivifying propositional clausal formulae. In: Proceedings of the 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’08), pp 525–529

  • Pipatsrisawat K, Darwiche A (2007) A lightweight component caching scheme for satisfiability solvers. In: Proceedings of SAT’07, pp 294–299

  • Pipatsrisawat K, Darwiche A (2008) A new clause learning scheme for efficient unsatisfiability proofs. In: AAAI, pp 1481–1484

  • Pipatsrisawat K, Darwiche A (2009) On the power of clause-learning sat solvers with restarts. In: CP, pp 654–668

  • Pipatsrisawat K, Darwiche A (2009) Width-based restart policies for clause-learning satisfiability solvers. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’09), pp 341–355

  • Prosser P (1993) Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Comput Intell 9: 268–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine WV (1955) A way to simplify truth functions. Am Math Mon 62(9): 627–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JA (1965) A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J ACM 12: 23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sais L (2008) Probleme SAT: Progrès et Défis. Hermes Publishing Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sörensson N, Biere A (2009) Minimizing learned clauses. In: 12th International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing—SAT’2009, pp 237–243

  • Stallman RM, Sussman GJ (1977) Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artif Intell 9(2): 135–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subbarayan S, Pradhan DK (2004) Niver: non increasing variable elimination resolution for preprocessing sat instances. In: SAT (2004)

  • Tseitin GS (1968) On the complexity of derivations in the propositional calculus. In: Slesenko HAO (ed) Structures in constructives mathematics and mathematical logic, Part II, pp 115–125

  • Warners JP (1998) A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into conjunctive normal form. Inf Process Lett 68(2): 63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H (1997) SATO: an efficient propositional prover. In: McCune W (ed) Proceedings of the 14th international conference on automated deduction, LNAI, vol 1249. Springer, Berlin, pp 272–275

  • Zhang Lintao (2005) On subsumption removal and on-the-fly cnf simplification. In: SAT, pp 482–489

  • Zhang L, Madigan CF, Moskewicz MH (2001) Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: In ICCAD, pp 279–285

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youssef Hamadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S. & Saïs, L. Learning from conflicts in propositional satisfiability. 4OR-Q J Oper Res 10, 15–32 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-011-0191-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-011-0191-7

Keywords

MSC classification (2010)

Navigation