skip to main content
10.1145/775832.776042acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Shatter: efficient symmetry-breaking for boolean satisfiability

Published:02 June 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers have experienced dramatic improvements in their performance and scalability over the last several years [5, 7] and are now routinely used in diverse EDA applications. Nevertheless, a number of practical SAT instances remain difficult to solve [9] and continue to defy even the best available SAT solvers [5, 7]. Recent work pointed out that symmetries in the Boolean search space are often to blame. A theoretical framework for detecting and breaking such symmetries was introduced in [2]. This framework was subsequently extended, refined, and empirically shown to yield significant speed-ups for a large number of benchmark classes in [1].Symmetries in the search space are broken by adding appropriate symmetry-breaking predicates (SBPs) to a SAT instance in conjunctive normal form (CNF). The SBPs prune the search space by acting as a filter that confines the search to non-symmetric regions of the space without affecting the satisfiability of the CNF formula. For symmetry breaking to be effective in practice, the computational overhead of generating and manipulating the SBPs must be significantly less than the run time savings they yield due to search space pruning. In this paper we present several new constructions of SBPs that improve on previous work. Specifically, we give a linear-sized CNF formula that selects lex-leaders (among others) for single permutations. We also show how that formula can be simplified by taking advantage of the sparsity of permutations. We test these improvements against earlier constructions and show that they yield smaller SBPs and lead to run time reductions on many benchmarks.

References

  1. F. Aloul, A. Ramani, I. Markov, and K. Sakallah, "Solving Difficult SAT Instances in the Presence of Symmetries," in Proc. of the Design Automation Conference (DAC), 731--736, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Crawford, M. Ginsberg, E. Luks, and A. Roy, "Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems," in Proc. of the Intl. Conference Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 148--159, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. DIMACS Challenge benchmarks in ftp://Dimacs.rutgers.EDU/pub/challenge/sat/benchmarks/cnf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I. Gessel and R. Stanley, "Algebraic Enumeration," in R. Graham, M. Grotschel and L. Lovasz, eds, Handbook of Combinatorics, vol. 2, MIT Press, 1021--1061, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov, "BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver," in Proc. of DATE, 142--149, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. McKay, "Practical Graph Isomorphism," in Congressus Numerantium, vol. 30, 45--87, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik, "Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver," in DAC, 530--535, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. G. Nam, F. Aloul, K. Sakallah, and R. Rutenbar, "A Comparative Study of Two Boolean Formulations of FPGA Detailed Routing Constraints," in Proc. of Intl. Symp. on Physical Design, 222--227, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. SAT 2002 Competition, http://www.satlive.org/SATCompetition/submittedbenchs.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Urquhart, "Hard Examples for Resolution," in Journal of the ACM, 34(1), 209--219, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    DAC '03: Proceedings of the 40th annual Design Automation Conference
    June 2003
    1014 pages
    ISBN:1581136889
    DOI:10.1145/775832

    Copyright © 2003 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 2 June 2003

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    DAC '03 Paper Acceptance Rate152of628submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate1,770of5,499submissions,32%

    Upcoming Conference

    DAC '24
    61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
    June 23 - 27, 2024
    San Francisco , CA , USA

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader