Advertisement

Abstract

Over the years, a steadily improving series of local search solvers for propositional satisfiability (SAT) have been constructed. However, these solvers are often fragile, in that they have apparently minor details in their implementation that dramatically affect performance and confound understanding. In order to understand and predict the success of differing strategies, various local search metrics have been proposed. Many of these metrics summarize properties of the boolean assignments examined during the search. This has two consequences: first, they only capture one side of satisfiability, failing to characterize the behaviour with respect to constraints. Secondly, the boolean requirement limits the applicability of these metrics to more general constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs), which can have non-boolean domains.

In response, we present dual metrics, derived from existing primal (boolean assignment) metrics, that are based on the states of constraints during the search. Experimental results show a strong relationship between the primal and dual versions of these metrics on a variety of random and structured problems. This dual perspective can be easily applied to both SAT and general CSPs, allowing for new insights into the workings of a broad class of local search methods.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Battiti, R.: Reactive search: Toward self–tuning heuristics. In: Rayward-Smith, V.J., Osman, I.H., Reeves, C.R., Smith, G.D. (eds.) Modern Heuristic Search Methods, pp. 61–83. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cha, B., Iwama, K.: Performance Test of Local Search Algorithms Using New Types of Random CNF Formulas. In: Proceedings of 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 304–311. Kyushu University (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cha, B., Iwama, K.: Adding New Clauses for Faster Local Search. In: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1996), pp. 332–337 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frances, M., Litman, A.: On Covering Problems of Codes. Theory of Computing Systems 30, 113–119 (1997)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gent, I.P., Walsh, T.: Towards an Understanding of Hill-Climbing Procedures for SAT. In: Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1993), pp. 28–33 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoos, H.: On the Run-time Behaviour of Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for SAT. In: Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1999), pp. 661–666. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoos, H.H., Stützle, T.: SATLIB: An Online Resource for Research on SAT. In: Gent, I.P., von Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2000), pp. 283–292. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horvitz, E., Ruan, Y., Gomes, C.P., Kautz, H., Selman, B., Chickering, D.M.: A Bayesian approach to tackling hard computational problems. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2001), August 2001, pp. 235–244 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutter, F., Tompkins, D.A.D., Hoos, H.H.: Scaling and Probabilistic Smoothing: Efficient Dynamic Local Search for SAT. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, p. 233. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McAllester, D., Selman, B., Kautz, H.: Evidence for Invariants in Local Search. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1997). AT&T Laboratories (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schuurmans, D., Southey, F.: Local search characteristics of incomplete SAT procedures. Artificial Intelligence 132(2), 121–150 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schuurmans, D., Southey, F., Holte, R.C.: The exponentiated subgradient algorithm for heuristic boolean programming. In: Proceedings of 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), vol. 1, pp. 334–341 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., Cohen, B.: Noise Strategies for Improving Local Search. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1994), July 1994, AT&T Bell Labs (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Selman, B., Levesque, H., Mitchell, D.: A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems. In: Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1992), AT&T, University of Toronto, Simon Fraser, pp. 440–446 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thornton, J.R., Pham, D.N., Bain, S., Ferreira Jr., V.: Additive versus Multiplicative Clause Weighting for SAT. In: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu, Z., Wah, B.W.: Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems: A Unified Algorithm Based On Discrete Lagrange Multipliers. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. UIUC (November 1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu, Z., Wah, B.W.: Trap Escaping Strategies in Discrete Lagrangian Methods for Solving Hard Satisfiability and Maximum Satisfiability Problems. In: Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1999) (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Finnegan Southey
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computing ScienceUniversity of Alberta 

Personalised recommendations