Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resolution versus Search: Two Strategies for SAT

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

Abstract

The paper compares two popular strategies for solving propositional satisfiability, backtracking search and resolution, and analyzes the complexity of a directional resolution algorithm (DR) as a function of the “width” (w *) of the problem"s graph. Our empirical evaluation confirms theoretical prediction, showing that on low-w * problems DR is very efficient, greatly outperforming the backtracking-based Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure (DP). We also emphasize the knowledge-compilation properties of DR and extend it to a tree-clustering algorithm that facilitates query answering. Finally, we propose two hybrid algorithms that combine the advantages of both DR and DP. These algorithms use control parameters that bound the complexity of resolution and allow time/space trade-offs that can be adjusted to the problem structure and to the user"s computational resources. Empirical studies demonstrate the advantages of such hybrid schemes.

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. Arnborg, S., Corneil D. G. and Proskurowski A.: Complexity of finding embedding in a k-tree, SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods 8(2) (1987), 177–184.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Basin, D. and Ganzinger, H.: Complexity analysis based on ordered resolution, in Proc. 11th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996, pp. 456–465.

  3. Bayardo, R. and Miranker, D.: A complexity analysis of space-bound learning algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), 1996, pp. 298–304.

  4. Bayardo, R. J. and Schrag, R. C.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in Proceedings of AAAI-97, 1997, pp. 203–208.

  5. Becker, A. and Geiger, D.: A sufficiently fast algorithm for finding close to optimal jnmction trees, in Uncertainty in AI (UAI-96), 1996, pp. 81–89.

  6. Ben-Eliyahu, R. and Dechter, R.: Default reasoning using classical logic, Artif. Intell. 84 (1996), 113–150.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bertele, U. and Brioschi, F.: Nonserial Dynamic Programming, Academic Press, New York, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chang, C.-L. and Lee, R. C.-T.: Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, 1973.

  9. Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B. and Taylor, W. M.: Where the really hard problems are, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1991, pp. 331–337.

  10. Cook, S. A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1971, pp. 151–158.

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

  12. Crawford, J. M. and Baker, A. B.: Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems, in Proceedings of AAAI-94, Seattle, WA, 1994, pp. 1092–1097.

  13. Davis, M., Logemann, G. and Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving, Comm. ACM 5 (1962), 394–397.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davis, M. and Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 7(3) (1960).

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

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dechter, R.: Constraint networks, in Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd edn, Wiley, 1992, pp. 276–285.

  17. Dechter, R.: Bucket elimination: A unifying framework for probabilistic inference algorithms, in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-96), 1996, pp. 211–219.

  18. Dechter, R.: Topological parameters for time-space tradeoffs, in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-96), 1996, pp. 220–227.

  19. Dechter, R. and Itai, A.: Finding all solutions if you can find one, in UCI Technical Report R23, 1992. Also in Proceedings of the Workshop on Tractable Reasoning, AAAI-92, 1992.

  20. Dechter, R. and Meiri, I.: Experimental evaluation of preprocessing techniques in constraint satisfaction problems, in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1989, pp. 271–277.

  21. Dechter, R. and Meiri, I.: Experimental evaluation of preprocessing algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems, Artif. Intell. 68 (1994), 211–241.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dechter, R. and Pearl, J.: Network-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems, Artif. Intell. 34 (1987), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dechter, R. and Pearl, J.: Tree clustering for constraint networks, Artif. Intell. (1989), 353–366.

  24. Dechter, R. and Pearl, J.: Directed constraint networks: A relational framework for causal models, in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), Sidney, Australia, 1991, pp. 1164–1170.

  25. Dechter, R. and Rish, I.: Directional resolution: The Davis-Putnam procedure, revisited, in Proceedings of KR-94, 1994.

  26. Dechter, R. and van Beek, P.: Local and global relational consistency, Theoret. Comput. Sci. (1997), 283–308.

  27. del Val, A.: A new method for consequence finding and compilation in restricted languages, in Proceedings of AAAI-99, 1999.

  28. Even, S., Itai, A. and Shamir, A.: On the complexity of timetable and multi-commodity flow, SIAM J. Comput. 5 (1976), 691–703.

    Google Scholar 

  29. El Fattah, Y. and Dechter, R.: Diagnosing tree-decomposable circuits, in International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, Canada, August 1995, pp. 1742–1748.

  30. El Fattah, Y. and Dechter, R.: An evaluation of structural parameters for probabilistic reasoning: results on benchmark circuits, in UAI96, Portland, Oregon, August 1996, pp. 244–251.

  31. Franco, J. and Paul, M.: Probabilistic analysis of the Davis-Putnam procedure for solving the satisfiability problem, Discrete Appl. Math. 5 (1983), 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Freuder, E. C.: Synthesizing constraint expressions, Comm. ACM 21(11) (1978), 958–965.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Frost, D. and Dechter, R.: Dead-end driven learning, in AAAI-94: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994, pp. 294–300.

  34. Frost, D. and Dechter, R: In search of the best constraint satisfaction search, in Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994.

  35. Frost, D., Rish, T. and Vila, L.: Summarizing CSP hardness with continuous probability distributions, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI97), 1997, pp. 327–333.

  36. Frost, D. H.: Algorithms and heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems, Technical Report, Ph.D. Thesis, Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Galil, Z.: On the complexity of regular resolution and the Davis-Putnam procedure, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 4 (1977), 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ganzinger, H., Meyer, Chr. and Weidenbach, Chr.: Soft typing for ordered resolution, in Automated Deduction-CADE'14, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1249, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp. 321–335.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gaschnig, J.: A general backtrack algorithm that eliminates most redundant tests, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1977, p. 247.

  40. Gaschnig, J.: Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms, Technical Report CMU-CS–79–124, Carnegie Mellon University, 1979.

  41. Van Gelder, A. and Tsuji, Y. K.: Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing, in D. Johnson and M. A. Trick (eds), Cliques, Coloring and Satisfiability, 1996.

  42. Gent, I. P. and Walsh, T.: The satisfiability constraint gap, Artif. Intell. 81 (1996), 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Goerdt, A.: Davis-Putnam resolution versus unrestricted resolution, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 6 (1992), 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Goldberg, A., Purdom, P. and Brown, C.: Average time analysis of simplified Davis-Putnam procedures, Inform. Process. Lett. 15 (1982), 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Haralick, R. M. and Elliott, G. L.: Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems, Artif. Intell. 14 (1980), 263–313.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hooker, J. N. and Vinay, V.: Branching rules for satisfiability, in Third International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1994.

  47. Huberman, B. A. and Hogg, T.: Phase transitions in artificial intelligence systems, Artif. Intell. 33 (1987), 155–171.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J.: Constraint logic programming: A survey, J. Logic Programming 19(20) (1994), 503–581.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kask, K. and Dechter, R.: Gsat and local consistency, in Proceedings of IJCAI-95, 1995, pp. 616–622.

  51. Kautz, H. and Selman, B.: Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search, in Proceedings of AAAI-96, 1996.

  52. Kowalski, R. and Hayes, P.: Semantic trees in automatic theorem proving, Mach. Intell. 4 (1969), 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lauritzen, S. L. and Spiegelhalter, D. J.: Local computation with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 50(2) (1988), 157–224.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mackworth, A. K.: Consistency in networks of relations, Artif. Intell. 8(1) (1977), 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mitchell, D., Selman, B. and Levesque, H.: Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems, in Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1992, pp. 459–465.

  56. Prosser, P.: BMCBJ D BMJ, in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications, 1983, pp. 257–262.

  57. Prosser, P.: Hybrid algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems, Comput. Intell. 9(3) (1993), 268–299.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rish, I.: Efficient reasoning in graphical models, Ph.D. Thesis, 1999.

  59. Rish, I. and Dechter, R.: To guess or to think? Hybrid algorithms for SAT (extended abstract), in Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP96), 1996.

  60. Rish, I. and Frost, D.: Statistical analysis of backtracking on inconsistent CSPs, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP97), 1997.

  61. Robertson, N. and Seymour, P.: Graph minor: XIII, the disjoint paths problem, Combin. Theory Ser. B 63 (1995), 65–110.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sabin, D. and Freuder, E. C.: Contradicting conventional wisdom in constraint satisfaction, in ECAI-94, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 125–129.

  63. Seidel, R.: A new method for solving constraint satisfaction problems, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-81), Vancouver, Canada, 1981, pp. 338–342.

  64. Selman, B., Kautz, H. and Cohen, B.: Noise strategies for improving local search, in Proceedings of AAAI94, 1994, pp. 337–343.

  65. Selman, B., Levesque, H. and Mitchell, D.: A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems, in Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1992, pp. 440–446.

  66. Slagle, J. R.: Automatic theorem-proving with renamable and semantic resolution, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 14 (1967), 687–697.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Smith, B. M. and Dyer, M. E.: Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems, Artif. Intell. 81 (1996), 155–181.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Smyth, B. M. and Dyer, M. E.: Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems, Artif. Intell. 81 (1996), 155–181.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tarjan, R. E. and Yannakakis, M.: Simple linear-time algorithms to test chordality of graphs, test acyclicity of hypergraphs and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs, SIAM J. Comput. 13(3) (1984), 566–579.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Irina Rish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rina Dechter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rish, I., Dechter, R. Resolution versus Search: Two Strategies for SAT. Journal of Automated Reasoning 24, 225–275 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006303512524

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006303512524

Search

Navigation