Advertisement

Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 359–383 | Cite as

Branching rules for satisfiability

  • J. N. Hooker
  • V. Vinay
Article

Abstract

Recent experience suggests that branching algorithms are among the most attractive for solving propositional satisfiability problems. A key factor in their success is the rule they use to decide on which variable to branch next. We attempt to explain and improve the performance of branching rules with an empirical model-building approach. One model is based on the rationale given for the Jeroslow-Wang rule, variations of which have performed well in recent work. The model is refuted by carefully designed computational experiments. A second model explains the success of the Jeroslow-Wang rule, makes other predictions confirmed by experiment, and leads to the design of branching rules that are clearly superior to Jeroslow-Wang.

Key words

branching algorithms satisfiability Jeroslaw-Wang rule 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amini, M. M. and Racer, M.: A variable-depth-search heuristic for the generalized assignment problem,Management Science, to appear.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Böhm, H.: Report on a SAT Competition, Technical report No. 110, Universität Paderborn, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, S. A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, inProc. 3rd Annual ACM Symp. on the Theory of Computing, 1971, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crawford, J.: Problems contributed to DIMACS. For information contact Crawford at AT&T Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, NJ, 07974-0636 USA, e-mail jc@research.att.com.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, M. and Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory,J. ACM 7 (1960), 201–215.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, O.: Problems contributed to DIMACS. For information contact Dubois at Laforia, CNRS-Université Paris 6, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France, e-mail dubois@laforia.ibp.fr.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubois, O., Andre, P., Boufkhad, Y., and Carlier, J.: SAT versus UNSAT, manuscript, Laforia, CNRS-Université Paris 6, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France, 1993, e-mail dubois@laforia.ibp.fr.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erdös, P. and Lovász, L.: Problems and results on 3-chromatic hypergraphs and some related questions, inInfinite and Finite Sets, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman, T. W.: Failed literals in the Davis-Putnam procedure for SAT, manuscript, Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104 USA, CA, 1993, freeman@gradient.cis.upenn.edu.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallo, G. and Pretolani, D.: A new algorithm for the propositional satisfiability problem, report TR-3/90, Dip. di Informatica, Universitá di Pisa,Discrete Applied Mathematics, to appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallo, G. and Urbani, G.: Algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional formulae,J. Logic programming 7 (1989), 45–61.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golden, B. L. and Stewart, W. R.: Empirical analysis of heuristics, in Lawler, Lenstra, Rinnooy Kan, and Schmoys (eds),The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization, Wiley, New York, 1985, pp. 207–249.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harche, F., Hooker, J. N., and Thompson, G.: A computational study of sastifiability algorithms for propositional logic,ORSA J. Computing 6 (1994), 423–435. For more information contact J. Hooker, email jh38@andrew.cmu.edu.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hooker, J. N.: Needed: An empirical science of algorithms,Operations Research 42 (1994), 201–212.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hooker, J. N. and Fedjki, C.: Branch and cut solution of inference problems in propositional logic,Annals of Mathematics and AI 1 (1990), 123–139.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwama, K., Albeta, H., and Miyano, E.: Random generation of satisfiable and unsatisfiable CNF predicates, inProc. of 12th IFIP World Computer Congress, 1992, pp. 322–328. For further information contact Eiji Miyano, Dept. of Computer Science and Communication Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812, Japan, e-mail miyano@csce.kyushu-u.ac.jp.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeroslow, R. and Wang, J.: Solving propositional satisfiability problems,Annals of Mathematics and AI 1 (1990), 167–187.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kamath, A., Karmarkar, N., Ramakrishnan, K., and Resende, M.: A continuous approach to inductive inference,Mathematical Programming 57 (1992), 215–238. For further information contact Mauricio Resende, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA, e-mail mgcr@research.att.com.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin, B. W. and Rardin, R. L.: Controlled experimental design for statistical comparison of integer programming algorithms,Management Science 25 (1980), 1258–1271.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loveland, D. W.:Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitterreiter, I. and Radermacher, F. J.: Experiments on the running time behavior of some algorithms solving propositional logic problems, manuscript, Forschungsinstitut für anwendungsorientierte Wissensverarbeitung, Ulm, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petersen, R. G.:Design and Analysis of Experiments, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pretolani, D.: Efficiency and stability of hypergraph SAT algorithms, manuscript, Dip. di Informatica, Univ. di Pisa, Corso Itali 40, 56125 Pisa, Italy. For information on problems contact e-mail pretola@di.unipi.it.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spencer, J.:Ten Lectures on the Probabilistic Method, Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics52, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Gelder, A. and Tsuji, Y. K.: Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing, manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 1994. For information on problems contact e-mail avg@cs.ucsc.edu or tsuji@cs.ucsc.edu.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson, J. M.: Compact normal forms in propositional logic and integer programming formulations,Computers and Operations Research 90 (1990), 309–314.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. N. Hooker
    • 1
  • V. Vinay
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Industrial AdministrationCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Artificial Intelligence and RoboticsBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations