Advertisement

Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 261–276 | Cite as

An Efficient Approach to Solving Random k-sat Problems

  • Gilles Dequen
  • Olivier Dubois
Article

Abstract

Proving that a propositional formula is contradictory or unsatisfiable is a fundamental task in automated reasoning. This task is coNP-complete. Efficient algorithms are therefore needed when formulae are hard to solve. Random \(k-\) sat formulae provide a test-bed for algorithms because experiments that have become widely popular show clearly that these formulae are consistently difficult for any known algorithm. Moreover, the experiments show a critical value of the ratio of the number of clauses to the number of variables around which the formulae are the hardest on average. This critical value also corresponds to a ‘phase transition’ from solvability to unsolvability. The question of whether the formulae located around or above this critical value can efficiently be proved unsatisfiable on average (or even for a.e. formula) remains up to now one of the most challenging questions bearing on the design of new and more efficient algorithms. New insights into this question could indirectly benefit the solving of formulae coming from real-world problems, through a better understanding of some of the causes of problem hardness. In this paper we present a solving heuristic that we have developed, devoted essentially to proving the unsatisfiability of random \(k-\) sat formulae and inspired by recent work in statistical physics. Results of experiments with this heuristic and its evaluation in two recent sat competitions have shown a substantial jump in the efficiency of solving hard, unsatisfiable random \(k-\) sat formulae.

Key words

satisfiability solving heuristic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y.: Efficient CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming–CP2003: 9th Internatioanl Conference, LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 108–122 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beame, P., Karp, R., Pitassi, T., Saks, M.: The efficiency of resolution and Davis–Putnam procedures. SIAM 31(4), 1048–1075 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boufkhad, Y., Dubois, O.: Length of prime implicants and number of solutions of random CNF formulae. Theor. Comp. Sci. 215(1–2), 1–30 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braunstein, A., Mezard, M., Zecchina, R.: Survey propagation: an algorithm for satisfiability. arXiv-cond-mat/0207194 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cocco, S., Monasson, R.: Heuristic average-case analysis of the backtrack resolution of random 3-satisfiability instances. Theor. Comp. Sci. 320(2–3), 345–372 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crawford, J.M., Auton, L.D.: Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 21–27 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 5, 394–397 (1962)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dequen, G., Dubois, O.: kcnfs: An efficient solver for random k-SAT formulae. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), Selected Revised Papers, LNCS, vol. 6, pp. 486–501 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, O., Andre, P., Boufkhad, Y., Carlier, J.: SAT versus UNSAT. In: DIMACS Series in Discr. Math. and Theor. Computer Science, pp. 415–436 (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubois, O., Boufkhad, Y.: A general upper bound for the satisfiability threshold of random r-SAT formulae. J. Algorithms 24(2), 395–420 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubois, O., Dequen, G.: A backbone search heuristic for efficient solving of hard 3-SAT Formulae. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Seattle, pp. 248–253 (2001a)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois, O., Dequen, G.: The non-existence of (3,1,2)-conjugate orthogonal idempotent Latin square of order 10. In: Proceedings of CP'2001, pp 108–120 (2001b)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubois, O., Mandler, J.: The 3-XORSAT threshold. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 769–778 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feige, U.: Relations between average case complexity and approximation complexity. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 534–543 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman, J.W.: Improvements to propositional satisfiability search Algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman, J.W.: Hard random 3-SAT problems and the Davis–Putnam procedure. Artif. Intell. 81(1–2), 183–198 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goerdt, A., Jurdzinski, T.: Some results on random unsatisfiable k-Sat instances and approximation algorithms applied to random structures. Comb. Probab. Comput. 12(3), 245–267 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grégoire, E., Ostrowski, R., Mazure, B., Sais, L.: Automatic extraction of functional dependencies. In: Testing: 7th International Conference (SAT’04), Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 3542, Springer, pp. 122–132 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoos, H.H.: An adaptive noise mechanism for walkSAT. In: Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 655–660 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoos, H.H., Stutzle, T.: Local search algorithms for SAT: An empirical evaluation. J. Autom. Reason. 24(4), 421–481 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kullman, O.: Heuristics for SAT algorithms: A systematic study. In: Extended abstract for the Second Workshop on the Satisfiability Problem (SAT'98) (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leberre, D., Simon, L.: The essentials of the SAT 2003 competition. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 6 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leberre, D., Simon, L.: Fifty-five solvers in Vancouver: The SAT 2004 Competition. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, SAT 2004, Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 3542, Springer, pp 321–344 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li, C.M.: Exploiting yet more the power of unit clause propagation to solve the 3-SAT problem. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 11–16 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Nagoya, Japan, pp. 366–371 (1997a)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1330, pp. 341–355 (1997b)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mezard, M., Parisi, G., Zecchina, R.: Analytic and algorithmic solutions of random satisfiability problems. Science 297, 812–815 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Monasson, R., Zecchina, R., Kirkpatrick, S., Selman, B., Troyansky, L.: 2+p-SAT: Relation of typical-case complexity to the nature of the phase transition. RSA: Random Struct. Algorithms 15, 414–440 (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of 9th Design Automation Conference. Las Vegas (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenthal, J.W., Plotkin, J.W., Franco, J.: The probability of pure literals. J. Log. Comput. 9(4), 501–513 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Selman, B., Kautz, H.A.: Ten challenges redux: Recent progress in propositional reasoning and search. Invited paper, Ninth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2003). Cork (Ireland) (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., Cohen, B.: Noise strategies for improving local search. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 337–343. Menlo Park, California (1994)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., McAllester, D.A.: Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97), pp. 50–54 (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singer, J., Gent, I., Smail, A.: Backbone fragility and the local search cost peak. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 12, 235–270 (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Slaney, J., Walsh, T.: Backbones in optimization and approximation. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Seattle, pp. 254–259 (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of ICCAD, 279–285, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LaRIA, Université de Picardie Jules VerneAmiens Cedex 1France
  2. 2.LIP6, CNRS-Université Paris 6Paris Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations