Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Efficient Approach to Solving Random k-sat Problems

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proving that a propositional formula is contradictory or unsatisfiable is a fundamental task in automated reasoning. This task is coNP-complete. Efficient algorithms are therefore needed when formulae are hard to solve. Random \(k-\) sat formulae provide a test-bed for algorithms because experiments that have become widely popular show clearly that these formulae are consistently difficult for any known algorithm. Moreover, the experiments show a critical value of the ratio of the number of clauses to the number of variables around which the formulae are the hardest on average. This critical value also corresponds to a ‘phase transition’ from solvability to unsolvability. The question of whether the formulae located around or above this critical value can efficiently be proved unsatisfiable on average (or even for a.e. formula) remains up to now one of the most challenging questions bearing on the design of new and more efficient algorithms. New insights into this question could indirectly benefit the solving of formulae coming from real-world problems, through a better understanding of some of the causes of problem hardness. In this paper we present a solving heuristic that we have developed, devoted essentially to proving the unsatisfiability of random \(k-\) sat formulae and inspired by recent work in statistical physics. Results of experiments with this heuristic and its evaluation in two recent sat competitions have shown a substantial jump in the efficiency of solving hard, unsatisfiable random \(k-\) sat formulae.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  1. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y.: Efficient CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming–CP2003: 9th Internatioanl Conference, LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 108–122 (2003)

  2. Beame, P., Karp, R., Pitassi, T., Saks, M.: The efficiency of resolution and Davis–Putnam procedures. SIAM 31(4), 1048–1075 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Boufkhad, Y., Dubois, O.: Length of prime implicants and number of solutions of random CNF formulae. Theor. Comp. Sci. 215(1–2), 1–30 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Braunstein, A., Mezard, M., Zecchina, R.: Survey propagation: an algorithm for satisfiability. arXiv-cond-mat/0207194 (2002)

  5. Cocco, S., Monasson, R.: Heuristic average-case analysis of the backtrack resolution of random 3-satisfiability instances. Theor. Comp. Sci. 320(2–3), 345–372 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Crawford, J.M., Auton, L.D.: Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 21–27 (1993)

  7. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 5, 394–397 (1962)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dequen, G., Dubois, O.: kcnfs: An efficient solver for random k-SAT formulae. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), Selected Revised Papers, LNCS, vol. 6, pp. 486–501 (2003)

  9. Dubois, O., Andre, P., Boufkhad, Y., Carlier, J.: SAT versus UNSAT. In: DIMACS Series in Discr. Math. and Theor. Computer Science, pp. 415–436 (1993)

  10. Dubois, O., Boufkhad, Y.: A general upper bound for the satisfiability threshold of random r-SAT formulae. J. Algorithms 24(2), 395–420 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Dubois, O., Dequen, G.: A backbone search heuristic for efficient solving of hard 3-SAT Formulae. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Seattle, pp. 248–253 (2001a)

  12. Dubois, O., Dequen, G.: The non-existence of (3,1,2)-conjugate orthogonal idempotent Latin square of order 10. In: Proceedings of CP'2001, pp 108–120 (2001b)

  13. Dubois, O., Mandler, J.: The 3-XORSAT threshold. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 769–778 (2002)

  14. Feige, U.: Relations between average case complexity and approximation complexity. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 534–543 (2002)

  15. Freeman, J.W.: Improvements to propositional satisfiability search Algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1995)

  16. Freeman, J.W.: Hard random 3-SAT problems and the Davis–Putnam procedure. Artif. Intell. 81(1–2), 183–198 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Goerdt, A., Jurdzinski, T.: Some results on random unsatisfiable k-Sat instances and approximation algorithms applied to random structures. Comb. Probab. Comput. 12(3), 245–267 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Grégoire, E., Ostrowski, R., Mazure, B., Sais, L.: Automatic extraction of functional dependencies. In: Testing: 7th International Conference (SAT’04), Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 3542, Springer, pp. 122–132 (2005)

  19. Hoos, H.H.: An adaptive noise mechanism for walkSAT. In: Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 655–660 (2002)

  20. Hoos, H.H., Stutzle, T.: Local search algorithms for SAT: An empirical evaluation. J. Autom. Reason. 24(4), 421–481 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Kullman, O.: Heuristics for SAT algorithms: A systematic study. In: Extended abstract for the Second Workshop on the Satisfiability Problem (SAT'98) (1998)

  22. Leberre, D., Simon, L.: The essentials of the SAT 2003 competition. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 6 (2003)

  23. Leberre, D., Simon, L.: Fifty-five solvers in Vancouver: The SAT 2004 Competition. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, SAT 2004, Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 3542, Springer, pp 321–344 (2005)

  24. Li, C.M.: Exploiting yet more the power of unit clause propagation to solve the 3-SAT problem. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 11–16 (1996)

  25. Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Nagoya, Japan, pp. 366–371 (1997a)

  26. Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1330, pp. 341–355 (1997b)

  27. Mezard, M., Parisi, G., Zecchina, R.: Analytic and algorithmic solutions of random satisfiability problems. Science 297, 812–815 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Monasson, R., Zecchina, R., Kirkpatrick, S., Selman, B., Troyansky, L.: 2+p-SAT: Relation of typical-case complexity to the nature of the phase transition. RSA: Random Struct. Algorithms 15, 414–440 (1999)

  29. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of 9th Design Automation Conference. Las Vegas (2001)

  30. Rosenthal, J.W., Plotkin, J.W., Franco, J.: The probability of pure literals. J. Log. Comput. 9(4), 501–513 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Selman, B., Kautz, H.A.: Ten challenges redux: Recent progress in propositional reasoning and search. Invited paper, Ninth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2003). Cork (Ireland) (2003)

  32. Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., Cohen, B.: Noise strategies for improving local search. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 337–343. Menlo Park, California (1994)

  33. Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., McAllester, D.A.: Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97), pp. 50–54 (1997)

  34. Singer, J., Gent, I., Smail, A.: Backbone fragility and the local search cost peak. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 12, 235–270 (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Slaney, J., Walsh, T.: Backbones in optimization and approximation. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Seattle, pp. 254–259 (2001)

  36. Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of ICCAD, 279–285, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LaRIA, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 33 Rue St Leu, 80039, Amiens Cedex 1, France

    Gilles Dequen

  2. LIP6, CNRS-Université Paris 6, 4 place Jussieu, 75252, Paris Cedex 05, France

    Olivier Dubois

Authors
  1. Gilles Dequen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olivier Dubois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilles Dequen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dequen, G., Dubois, O. An Efficient Approach to Solving Random k-sat Problems. J Autom Reasoning 37, 261–276 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9025-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9025-2

Key words

Search

Navigation