Advertisement

Constraints

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 325–356 | Cite as

Limitations of restricted branching in clause learning

  • Matti Järvisalo
  • Tommi Junttila
Article

Abstract

The techniques for making decisions, that is, branching, play a central role in complete methods for solving structured instances of constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). In this work we consider branching heuristics in the context of propositional satisfiability (SAT), where CSPs are expressed as propositional formulas. In practice, there are cases when SAT solvers based on the Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure (DPLL) benefit from limiting the set of variables the solver is allowed to branch on to so called input variables which provide a strong unit propagation backdoor set to any SAT instance. Theoretically, however, restricting branching to input variables implies a super-polynomial increase in the length of the optimal proofs for DPLL (without clause learning), and thus input-restricted DPLL cannot polynomially simulate DPLL. In this paper we settle the case of DPLL with clause learning. Surprisingly, even with unlimited restarts, input-restricted clause learning DPLL cannot simulate DPLL (even without clause learning). The opposite also holds, and hence DPLL and input-restricted clause learning DPLL are polynomially incomparable. Additionally, we analyze the effect of input-restricted branching on clause learning solvers in practice with various structured real-world benchmarks.

Keywords

Propositional satisfiability Branching heuristics Clause learning DPLL Proof complexity Problem structure Backdoor sets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Achlioptas, D., Beame, P., & Molloy, M. (2004). Exponential bounds for DPLL below the satisfiability threshold. In J. I. Munro (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA’04) (pp. 139–140). Philadelphia: SIAM.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Achlioptas, D., Beame, P., & Molloy, M. S. O. (2004). A sharp threshold in proof complexity yields lower bounds for satisfiability search. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 68(2), 238–268.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alekhnovich, M. (2004). Mutilated chessboard problem is exponentially hard for resolution. Theoretical Computer Science, 310(1–3), 513–525.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alekhnovich, M., Hirsch, E. A., & Itsykson, D. (2005). Exponential lower bounds for the running time of DPLL algorithms on satisfiable formulas. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 35(1–3), 51–72.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alekhnovich, M., Johannsen, J., Pitassi, T., & Urquhart, A. (2002). An exponential separation between regular and general resolution. In Proceedings on 34th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC’02) (pp. 448–456). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beame, P., Culberson, J. C., Mitchell, D. G., & Moore, C. (2005). The resolution complexity of random graph k-colorability. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 153(1–3), 25–47.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., & Sabharwal, A. (2007). The resolution complexity of independent sets and vertex covers in random graphs. Computational Complexity, 16(3), 245–297.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beame, P., Karp, R. M., Pitassi, T., & Saks, M. E. (2002). The efficiency of resolution and Davis–Putnam procedures. SIAM Journal on Computing, 31(4), 1048–1075.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beame, P., Kautz, H. A., & Sabharwal, A. (2004). Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22, 319–351.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E. M., Fujita, M., & Zhu, Y. (1999). Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In Proceedings of the 36th conference on design automation (DAC’99) (pp. 317–320). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chvátal, V., & Szemerédi, E. (1988). Many hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM, 35(4), 759–768.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cook, S. A. (1976). A short proof of the pigeon hole principle using extended resolution. SIGACT News, 8(4), 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook, S. A., & Reckhow, R. A. (1979) The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44(1), 36–50.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Copty, F., Fix, L., Fraer, R., Giunchiglia, E., Kamhi, G., Tacchella, A., et al. (2001). Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In G. Berry, H. Comon, & A. Finkel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV’01). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2102, pp. 436–453). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dantchev, S., & Riis, S. (2001). “Planar” tautologies hard for resolution. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS’01) (pp. 220–229). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM, 5(7), 394–397.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1960). A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM, 7(3), 201–215.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2004). An extensible SAT-solver. In E. Giunchiglia & A. Tacchella (Eds.), Revised selected papers of the 6th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT’03). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2919, pp. 502–518). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., & Tacchella, A. (2002). Dependent and independent variables in propositional satisfiability. In S. Flesca, S. Greco, N. Leone, & G. Ianni (Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on logics in artificial intelligence JELIA’02. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 2424, pp. 296–307). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giunchiglia, E., Massarotto, A., & Sebastiani, R. (1998). Act, and the rest will follow: Exploiting determinism in planning as satisfiability. In B. B. C. Rich, J. Mostow, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’98) (pp. 948–953). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goerdt, A. (1993). Regular resolution versus unrestricted resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22(4), 661–683.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldberg, E., & Novikov, Y. (2002). Berkmin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In Proceedings of the 2002 design, automation and test in Europe conference (DATE’02) (pp. 142–149). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gomes, C. P., Selman, B., & Kautz, H. A. (1998). Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In B. B. C. Rich, J. Mostow, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’98) (pp. 431–437). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haken, A. (1985). The intractability of resolution. Theoretical Computer Science, 39(2–3), 297–308.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang, J. (2007). The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’07) (pp. 2318–2323). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Järvisalo, M. (2007). Equivalence checking multiplier designs. SAT Competition 2007 benchmark description. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/∼mjj/benchmarks/.
  27. 27.
    Järvisalo, M., & Junttila, T. (2007). Limitations of restricted branching in clause learning. In C. Bessiere (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP 2007). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4741, pp. 348–363). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Järvisalo, M., & Junttila, T. (2008). On the power of top-down branching heuristics. In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-08) (pp. 304–309). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Järvisalo, M., Junttila, T., & Niemelä, I. (2005). Unrestricted vs restricted cut in a tableau method for Boolean circuits. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 44(4), 373–399.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Järvisalo, M., & Niemelä, I. (2008). The effect of structural branching on the efficiency of clause learning SAT solving: An experimental study. Journal of Algorithms, 63(1–3), 90–113.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Junttila, T. A., & Niemelä, I. (2000). Towards an efficient tableau method for boolean circuit satisfiability checking. In J. W. Lloyd, V. Dahl, U. Furbach, M. Kerber, K. K. Lau, C. Palamidessi, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational logic (CL’00). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1861, pp. 553–567). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jussila, T., Heljanko, K., & Niemelä, I. (2005). BMC via on-the-fly determinization. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 7(2), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kautz, H. A., & Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In B. Neumann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’92) (pp. 359–363). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krajíček, J. (1995). Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory. In Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications (Vol. 60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kuehlmann, A., Ganai, M. K., & Paruthi, V. (2001). Circuit–based Boolean reasoning. In Proceedings of the 38th design automation conference (DAC’01) (pp. 232–237). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Latvala, T., Biere, A., Heljanko, K., & Junttila, T. A. (2004). Simple bounded LTL model checking. In A. J. Hu & A. K. Martin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD’04). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3312, pp. 186–200). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li, C. M., & Anbulagan (1997). Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In M. Pollack (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’97) (pp. 366–371). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marques-Silva, J., & Guerra e Silva, L. (2003). Solving satisfiability in combinational circuits. IEEE Design & Test of Computers 20(4), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marques-Silva, J. P., & Sakallah, K. A. (1999). GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48(5), 506–521.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moskewicz, M. W., Madigan, C. F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the 38th design automation conference (DAC’01) (pp. 530–535). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nikolenko, S. I. (2005). Hard satisfiable instances for DPLL-type algorithms. Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 126(3), 1205–1209.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Papadimitriou, C. H. (1995). Computational complexity. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pyhälä, T. (2004). Factoring benchmarks for SAT-solvers. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/genfacbm/.
  44. 44.
    Robinson, J. A. (1965). A machine oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the ACM, 12(1), 23–41.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strichman, O. (2000). Tuning SAT checkers for bounded model checking. In E. A. Emerson & A. P. Sistla (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV’00). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1855, pp. 480–494). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thiffault, C., Bacchus, F., & Walsh, T. (2004). Solving non-clausal formulas with DPLL search. In M. Wallace (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP’04). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3258, pp. 663–678). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tseitin, G. S. (1983). On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In A. Slisenko (Ed.), Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, part II. Seminars in mathematics, V.A. Steklov mathematical institute, Leningrad (Vol. 8, pp. 115–125). Consultants Bureau (1969). English translation appears in J. Siekmann and G. Wrightson, editors, Automation of Reasoning 2: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1967–1970 pages 466–483. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Urquhart, A. (1987). Hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM, 34(1), 209–219.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Urquhart, A. (1995). The complexity of propositional proofs. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 1(4), 425–467.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Velev, M. N., & Bryant, R. E. (1999). Superscalar processor verification using efficient reductions of the logic of equality with uninterpreted functions to propositional logic. In L. Pierre & T. Kropf (Eds.), Correct hardware design and verification methods, proceedings of the 10th IFIP WG 10.5 advanced research working conference (CHARME’99). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1703, pp. 37–53). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Williams, R., Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2003). Backdoors to typical case complexity. In G. Gottlob & T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’03) (pp. 1173–1178). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang, L., Madigan, C. F., Moskewicz, M. W., & Malik, S. (2001). Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In Proceedings of the 2001 international conference on computer-aided design (ICCAD’01) (pp. 279–285). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer ScienceHelsinki University of Technology TKKEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations