Advertisement

A parsimony tree for the SAT2002 competition

  • Paul W. Purdom
  • Daniel Le Berre
  • Laurent Simon
Article

Abstract

Twenty of the programs (solvers) submitted to the SAT 2002 Contest had no disqualifying errors. These solvers were run on 2023 satisfiability problems of varying hardnesses. Each solver was judged by which problems it could solve within the allowed time limit. Twelve solvers were best on some problem — they could solve it and the others could not. Only two solvers could not beat each remaining solver on some problems (where the problems could vary depending on which solver it was trying to beat). Thus, there is evidence that 18 solvers were extremely good. It is interesting to analyze the contest results in a way that groups together solvers with similar strengths and weaknesses. This paper uses the parsimony algorithm to produce a classification of the twenty solvers. The paper also has a second classification, almost the same as the first, for the twenty solvers, updated versions of two solvers, and a fictitious state of the art solver. The contest problems came in three groups, Industrial, Hand Made, and Random. The Random group of problems was about three times as large as the other two together. The classification identifies four groups of solvers (plus a miscellaneous group): weak solvers, incomplete solvers which are very good at some satisfiable Random problems, complete solvers which are very good at most Random problems, and complete solvers which are very good at Industrial and Hand Made problems.

Keywords

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) empirical evaluation parsimony 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Cocca and R. Monasson, Restart method and exponential acceleration of random 3-SAT instances resolution: A large deviation analysis of the David-Putnam-Loveland-Logemann algorithm (2002).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    W.H. Day, D.S. Johnson and D. Sankoff, Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies by compatibility, Systematic Zoology 35 (1986) 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Felsenstein, Phylogenies from molecular sequences: Inferences and reliability, Annu. Rev. Genet. 22 (1988) 521–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    W.M. Fitch, Toward defining the course of evolution: Minimum change for a specific tree topology, Systematic Zoology 20 (1971) 406–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov, BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver, in: Design, Automation, and Test in Europe (DATE ‘02) (2002) pp. 142–149; http://eigold.tripod.com.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.L. Graham and L.R. Foulds, Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in reasonable computational time, Mathematical Biosciences 60 (1982) 133–142.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.A. Harigan, Minimum evolution fits to a given tree, Biometrics 29 (1973) 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    I. Lynce and J. Marques Silva (2002).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Mézard, G. Parsi and R. Zecchina, Analytic and algorithmic solutions of random satisfiablity problems, Science 297 (2002) 812–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC’01) (2001) pp. 530–535.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P.W. Purdom, Jr., P.G. Bradford, K. Tamura and S. Kumar, Single column discrepancy and dynamic max-mini optimization for quickly finding the most parsimonious evolutionary trees, Bioinformatics 16 (2000) 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    L. Simon, D. Le Berre and E.A. Hirsch, The SAT2002 competition, this issue.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    N. Sordis and M. Nei, The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees, Mol. Biol. Evol. 4 (1987) 406–425.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul W. Purdom
    • 1
  • Daniel Le Berre
    • 2
  • Laurent Simon
    • 3
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.CRIL-CNRS, Faculté Jean PerrinUniversité d’ ArtoisLens CedexFrance
  3. 3.LRI, U.M.R. CNRS 8623Université Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations