The Impact of Branching Heuristics in Propositional Satisfiability Algorithms

  • João Marques-Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1695)

Abstract

This paper studies the practical impact of the branching heuristics used in Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) algorithms, when applied to solving real-world instances of SAT. In addition, different SAT algorithms are experimentally evaluated. The main conclusion of this study is that even though branching heuristics are crucial for solving SAT, other aspects of the organization of SAT algorithms are also essential. Moreover, we provide empirical evidence that for practical instances of SAT, the search pruning techniques included in the most competitive SAT algorithms may be of more fundamental significance than branching heuristics.

Keywords

Propositional Satisfiability Backtrack Search Branching Heuristics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Barth. A Davis-Putnam enumeration procedure for linear pseudo-boolean optimization. Technical Report MPI-I-2-003, MPI, January 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bayardo Jr. and R. Schrag. Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Bruynooghe. Analysis of dependencies to improve the behaviour of logic programs. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 293–305, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Buro and H. Kleine-Büning. Report on a SAT competition. Technical report, University of Paderborn, November 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Crawford and L. Auton. Experimental results on the cross-over point in satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 22–28, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 7:201–215, 1960.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Du, J. Gu, and P. M. Pardalos, editors. Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications, volume 35. American Mathematical Society, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Dubois, P. Andre, Y. Boufkhad, and J. Carlier. SAT versus UNSAT. In D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors, Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. W. Freeman. Improvements to Propositional Satisfiability Search Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, May 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Gaschnig. Performance Measurement and Analysis of Certain Search Algorithms. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 1979.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Van Gelder and Y. K. Tsuji. Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing. In D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors, Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. N. Hooker and V. Vinay. Branching rules for satisfiability. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 15:359–383, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. G. Jeroslow and J. Wang. Solving propositional satisfiability problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1:167–187, 1990.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors. Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Kautz and B. Selman. Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Larrabee. Test pattern generation using boolean satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, 11(1):4–15, January 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. M. Li and Anbulagan. Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. P. Marques-Silva and K. A. Sakallah. GRASP-A new search algorithm for satisfiability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, November 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Pretolani. Efficiency and stability of hypergraph sat algorithms. In D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors, Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Selman and H. Kautz. Domain-independent extensions to GSAT: Solving large structured satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 290–295, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Selman, H. Levesque, and D. Mitchell. A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 440–446, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. M. Stallman and G. J. Sussman. Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 9:135–196, October 1977.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Zabih and D. A. McAllester. A rearrangement search strategy for determining propositional satisfiability. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 155–160, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Zhang. SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 272–275, July 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Marques-Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.IST/INESCTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations