Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Heuristic-Based Backtracking Relaxation for Propositional Satisfiability

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

Abstract

In recent years backtrack search algorithms for propositional satisfiability (SAT) have been the subject of dramatic improvements. These improvements allowed SAT solvers to successfully solve instances with thousands or tens of thousands of variables. However, many new challenging problem instances are still too hard for current SAT solvers. As a result, further improvements to SAT technology are expected to have key consequences in solving hard real-world instances. This paper introduces a new idea: choosing the backtrack variable using a heuristic approach with the goal of diversifying the regions of the space that are explored during the search. The proposed heuristics are inspired by the heuristics proposed in recent years for the decision branching step of SAT solvers, namely, VSIDS and its improvements. Completeness conditions are established, which guarantee completeness for the new algorithm, as well as for any other incomplete backtracking algorithm. Experimental results on hundreds of instances derived from real-world problems show that the new technique is able to speed SAT solvers, while aborting fewer instances. These results clearly motivate the integration of heuristic backtracking in SAT solvers.

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. Baptista, L. and Marques-Silva, J. P.: Using randomization and learning to solve real-world instances of satisfiablility, in R. Dechter (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Vol. 1894 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000, pp. 489–494.

  2. Bayardo Jr., R. and Scharg, R.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997, pp.203–208.

  3. Bhalla, A., Lynce, I., de Sousa, J. and Marques-Silva, J.: Heuristic backtracking algorithms for SAT, in Proceedings of the International Workshop of Microprocessor Test and Verification, 2003, pp. 69–74.

  4. Bhalla, A., Lynce, J., de Sousa, J. and Marques-Silva, J. P.: Heuristic-based backtracking for propositional satisfiability, in F. Moura-Pires and S. Abreu (eds.), Proceedings of the Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol., 1894 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2003, pp. 116–130.

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

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M. and Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 7 (1960), 201–215.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Freuder, E. C., Dechter, R., Ginsberg, M. L., Selman, B. and Tsang, E.: Systematic versus stochastic constraint satisfaction, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995, pp. 2027–2032.

  8. Gaschnig, J.: Performance Measurement and Analysis of Certain Search Algorithms, PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

  9. Ginsberg, M. L.: Dynamic backtracking, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 1 (1993), 25–46.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Ginsberg, M. L. and McAllester, D.: GSAT and dynamic backtracking, in Proceedings of the International Conference of Principles of Knowledge and Reasoning, 1994, pp. 226–237.

  11. Goldberg, E. and Nonikov, Y.: BerkMin: A Fast and Robust SAT-Solver, in Proceedings of the Design and Test in Europe Conference, 2002, pp. 142–149.

  12. Games, C. P., Selman, B. and Kautz, H.: Boosting combination search through randomization, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1998, pp. 431–437.

  13. Hirsch, E. A. and Kojevnikov, A.: Solving Boolean satisfiability using local search guided by unit clause elimination, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 2001, pp. 605–609.

  14. Jussien, N. and Lhomme, O.: Local search with constraint propagation and conflict-based heuristics, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2000, pp.169–174.

  15. Lynce, I., Baptista, L. and Marques-Silva, J. P.: Stochastic systematic search algorithm for satisfiability, in Proceedings of the LICS Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, 2001, pp. 1–7.

  16. Lynce, I. and Marques-Silva, J. P.: Complete unrestricted backtracking algorithms for satisfiability, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, 2002, pp. 214–221.

  17. Lynce, I. and Marques-Silva, J. P.: On implementing more efficient SAT data structures, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, 2003, pp. 510–516.

  18. Marques-Silva, J. P. and Sakallah, K. A., GRASP—A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability, IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(5) (1999), 506–521.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L. and Malik, S.: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in Design Automation Conference, 2001, pp. 530–535.

  20. Prestwich, S.: A hybrid search architecture applied to hard random 3-SAT and low-autocorrelation binary sequences, in R. Dechter (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Vol. 1894 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000, pp. 337–352.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Richards, E. T. and Richards, B.: Non-systematic search and no-good learning, J. Autom. Reason. 24(4) (2000), 483–533.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Selman, B. and Kautz, H.: Domain-independent extensions to GSAT: Solving large structured satisfiability problems, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993, pp. 290–295.

  24. Stallman, R. M. and Sussman, G. J.: Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis, Artif. Intell. 9 (1977), 135–196.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Yokoo, M.: Weak-commitment search for solving satisfaction problems, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994, pp. 313–318.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Lisbon, IST/INESC-ID, Rua Alves Redol 9, 1000-029, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ateet Bhalla, Inês Lynce, José T. de Sousa & João Marques-Silva

Authors
  1. Ateet Bhalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inês Lynce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José T. de Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. João Marques-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ateet Bhalla.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhalla, A., Lynce, I., de Sousa, J.T. et al. Heuristic-Based Backtracking Relaxation for Propositional Satisfiability. J Autom Reasoning 35, 3–24 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-005-9005-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-005-9005-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation