Acta Informatica

, Volume 44, Issue 7–8, pp 509–523 | Cite as

Solving #SAT using vertex covers

Original Article

Abstract

We propose an exact algorithm for counting the models of propositional formulas in conjunctive normal form. Our algorithm is based on the detection of strong backdoor sets of bounded size; each instantiation of the variables of a strong backdoor set puts the given formula into a class of formulas for which models can be counted in polynomial time. For the backdoor set detection we utilize an efficient vertex cover algorithm applied to a certain “obstruction graph” that we associate with the given formula. This approach gives rise to a new hardness index for formulas, the clustering-width. Our algorithm runs in uniform polynomial time on formulas with bounded clustering-width. It is known that the number of models of formulas with bounded clique-width, bounded treewidth, or bounded branchwidth can be computed in polynomial time; these graph parameters are applied to formulas via certain (hyper)graphs associated with formulas. We show that clustering-width and the other parameters mentioned are incomparable: there are formulas with bounded clustering-width and arbitrarily large clique-width, treewidth, and branchwidth. Conversely, there are formulas with arbitrarily large clustering-width and bounded clique-width, treewidth, and branchwidth.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bacchus F., Dalmao S., Pitassi, T.: Algorithms and complexity results for #SAT and Bayesian inference. In: 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’03), pp. 340–351 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodlaender H.L. (1998). A partial k-arboretum of graphs with bounded treewidth. Theor. Comput. Sci. 209(1–2): 1–45 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen J., Kanj I.A. and Jia W. (2001). Vertex cover: further observations and further improvements. J. Algorithms 41(2): 280–301 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, J., Kanj, I.A., Xia, G.: Improved parameterized upper bounds for vertex cover. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2006), pp. 238–249 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Courcelle B., Makowsky J.A. and Rotics U. (2001). On the fixed parameter complexity of graph enumeration problems definable in monadic second-order logic. Discr. Appl. Math. 108(1-2): 23–52 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courcelle B. and Olariu S. (2000). Upper bounds to the clique-width of graphs. Discr. Appl. Math. 101(1–3): 77–114 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parameterized Complexity. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, E., Makowsky, J.A., Ravve, E.R.: Counting truth assignments of formulas of bounded tree-width or clique-width. Discr. Appl. Math. to appearGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flum J. and Grohe M. (2004). The parameterized complexity of counting problems. SIAM J. Comput. 33(4): 892–922 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garey M.R. and Johnson D.R. (1979). Computers and Intractability. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golumbic, M.C., Rotics, U.: On the clique-width of some perfect graph classes. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 11(3), 423–443 (2000) Selected papers from the Workshop on Graph-Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (WG 99), Part 1 (Ascona)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gottlob G., Scarcello F. and Sideri M. (2002). Fixed-parameter complexity in AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 138(1-2): 55–86 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gottlob, G., Szeider, S.: Fixed-parameter algorithms for artificial intelligence, constraint satisfaction, and database problems. Comput. J. Survey paper (2006, to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gramm J., Guo J., Hüffner F. and Niedermeier R. (2005). Graph-modeled data clustering: fixed-parameter algorithms for clique generation. Theory Comput. Syst. 38(4): 373–392 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Interian, Y.: Backdoor sets for random 3-SAT. In: Informal Proc. of SAT 2003 (Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, S. Margherita Ligure—Portofino, Italy, 5–8 May 2003) pp. 231–238 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwama K. (1989). CNF-satisfiability test by counting and polynomial average time. SIAM J. Comput. 18(2): 385–391 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kilby, P., Slaney, J.K., Thiébaux, S., Walsh, T.: Backbones and backdoors in satisfiability. In: Proceedings, The Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Seventeenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, 9–13 July 2005. AAAI, Pittsburgh, pp. 1368–1373 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleine Büning, H., Zhao, X.: Satisfiable formulas closed under replacement. In: Kautz H., Selman B. (eds.) Proceedings for the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, vol. 9. Elsevier, North-Holland (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Hidden structure in unsatisfiable random 3-SAT: An empirical study. In: 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2004), 15-17 November 2004, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 246–251. IEEE Computer Society, (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niedermeier R. (2006). Invitation to Fixed-Parameter Algorithms: Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications. Oxford University Press, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishimura, N., Ragde, P., Szeider, S.: Detecting backdoor sets with respect to Horn and binary clauses. In: Proceedings of SAT 2004 (Seventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, 10–13 May 2004. Vancouver, Canada, pp. 96–103 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oum S. and Seymour P. (2006). Approximating clique-width and branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96(4): 514–528 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roth D. (1996). On the hardness of approximate reasoning. Artif. Intell. 82(1–2): 273–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruan, Y., Kautz, H.A., Horvitz, E.: The backdoor key: a path to understanding problem hardness. In: McGuinness D.L., Ferguson G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 16th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 124–130. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Pittsburgh/Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samer, M., Szeider, S.: Algorithms for propositional model counting. In: Proceedings of LPAR 2007, 14th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, Yerevan, Armenia, 15–19 October 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2007, to appear)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Szeider, S.: On fixed-parameter tractable parameterizations of SAT. In: Giunchiglia E., Tacchella A. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability, 6th International Conference, SAT 2003, Selected and Revised Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2919, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szeider, S.: Backdoor sets for DLL subsolvers. J. Autom. Reason. 35(1–3), 73–88 (2005). Reprinted as Chap. 4 of the book SAT 2005—Satisfiability Research in the Year 2005, Giunchiglia E., Walsh T. (eds.) Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Valiant L.G. (1979). The complexity of computing the permanent. Theor. Comput. Sci. 8(2): 189–201 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams, R., Gomes, C., Selman, B.: On the connections between backdoors, restarts, and heavy-tailedness in combinatorial search. In: Informal Proc. of SAT 2003 (Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, Margherita S. Ligure—Portofino, Italy, 5–8 May 2003), pp. 222–230 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi Nishimura
    • 1
  • Prabhakar Ragde
    • 1
  • Stefan Szeider
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations