Decomposing SAT Instances with Pseudo Backbones

Two major search paradigms have been proposed for SAT solving: Systematic Search (SS) and Stochastic Local Search (SLS). In SAT competitions, while SLS solvers are effective on uniform random instances, SS solvers dominate SLS solvers on application instances with internal structures. One important structural property is decomposability. SS solvers have long been exploited the decomposability of application instances with success. We conjecture that SLS solvers can be improved by exploiting decomposability of application instances, and propose the first step toward exploiting decomposability with SLS solvers using pseudo backbones. We then propose two SAT-specific optimizations that lead to better decomposition than on general pseudo Boolean optimization problems. Our empirical study suggests that pseudo backbones can vastly simplify SAT instances, which further results in decomposing the instances into thousands of connected components. This decomposition serves as a key stepping stone for applying the powerful recombination operator, partition crossover, to the SAT domain. Moreover, we establish a priori analysis for identifying problem instances with potential decomposability using visualization of MAXSAT instances and treewidth.

[1]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[2]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph Minors. II. Algorithmic Aspects of Tree-Width , 1986, J. Algorithms.

[3]  Sheila A. McIlraith,et al.  Partition-based logical reasoning for first-order and propositional theories , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The complexity of theorem-proving procedures , 1971, STOC.

[5]  Weixiong Zhang,et al.  Configuration landscape analysis and backbone guided local search: Part I: Satisfiability and maximum satisfiability , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[6]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Tunnelling Crossover Networks , 2015, GECCO.

[7]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Partition Crossover for Pseudo-Boolean Optimization , 2015, FOGA.

[8]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Generalized asymmetric partition crossover (GAPX) for the asymmetric TSP , 2014, GECCO.

[9]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  Discovering Treewidth , 2005, SOFSEM.

[10]  Jeremy Frank,et al.  When Gravity Fails: Local Search Topology , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  Armin Biere,et al.  Bounded Model Checking Using Satisfiability Solving , 2001, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[13]  Armin Biere,et al.  Effective Preprocessing in SAT Through Variable and Clause Elimination , 2005, SAT.

[14]  Per Bjesse,et al.  Guiding SAT Diagnosis with Tree Decompositions , 2003, SAT.

[15]  Carlos Ansótegui,et al.  Using Community Structure to Detect Relevant Learnt Clauses , 2015, SAT.

[16]  Harry Zhang,et al.  Combining Adaptive Noise and Look-Ahead in Local Search for SAT , 2007, SAT.

[17]  Shen Lin Computer solutions of the traveling salesman problem , 1965 .

[18]  Stefan Szeider,et al.  Strong Backdoors to Bounded Treewidth SAT , 2012, 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[19]  Doug Hains,et al.  Tunneling between optima: partition crossover for the traveling salesman problem , 2009, GECCO.

[20]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Effective use of Boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and VLIW microprocessors , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[21]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  Dynamic Programming on Graphs with Bounded Treewidth , 1988, ICALP.

[22]  Rémi Monasson,et al.  Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’ , 1999, Nature.

[23]  Roger Villemaire,et al.  Scalable formula decomposition for propositional satisfiability , 2010, C3S2E '10.

[24]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  A Structure-Based Variable Ordering Heuristic for SAT , 2003, IJCAI.

[25]  Carsten Sinz Visualizing SAT Instances and Runs of the DPLL Algorithm , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[26]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  A Linear-Time Algorithm for Testing the Truth of Certain Quantified Boolean Formulas , 1979, Inf. Process. Lett..

[27]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[28]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  UBCSAT: An Implementation and Experimentation Environment for SLS Algorithms for SAT & MAX-SAT , 2004, SAT.

[29]  Derek G. Corneil,et al.  Complexity of finding embeddings in a k -tree , 1987 .

[30]  Alexei Lisitsa,et al.  Computer-aided proof of Erdős discrepancy properties , 2014, Artif. Intell..