Advertisement

Improving Implementation of SLS Solvers for SAT and New Heuristics for k-SAT with Long Clauses

  • Adrian Balint
  • Armin Biere
  • Andreas Fröhlich
  • Uwe Schöning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8561)

Abstract

Stochastic Local Search (SLS) solvers are considered one of the best solving technique for randomly generated problems and more recently also have shown great promise for several types of hard combinatorial problems. Within this work, we provide a thorough analysis of different implementation variants of SLS solvers on random and on hard combinatorial problems. By analyzing existing SLS implementations, we are able to discover new improvements inspired by CDCL solvers, which can speed up the search of all types of SLS solvers. Further, our analysis reveals that the multilevel break values of variables can be easily computed and used within the decision heuristic. By augmenting the probSAT solver with the new heuristic, we are able to reach new state-of-the-art performance on several types of SAT problems, especially on those with long clauses. We further provide a detailed analysis of the clause selection policy used in focused search SLS solvers.

Keywords

Stochastic Local Search Decision Heuristic Candidate Clause Improve Implementation Stochastic Local Search Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fukunaga, A.S.: Efficient implementations of SAT local search. In: Proc. SAT 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cai, S., Su, K., Luo, C.: Improving WalkSAT for random k-satisfiability problem with k > 3. In: Proc. AAAI 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cai, S., Su, K.: Comprehensive score: Towards efficient local search for SAT with long clauses. In: Proc. IJCAI 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balint, A., Schöning, U.: Choosing probability distributions for stochastic local search and the role of make versus break. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McAllester, D.A., Selman, B., Kautz, H.A.: Evidence for invariants in local search. In: Proc. AAAI/IAAI 1997, pp. 321–326 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu, Z., Wah, B.W.: An efficient global-search strategy in discrete lagrangian methods for solving hard satisfiability problems. In: Proc. AAAI/IAAI 2000, pp. 310–315 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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, pp. 233–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thornton, J., Pham, D.N., Bain, S., Ferreira. Jr., V.: Additive versus multiplicative clause weighting for SAT. In: Proc. AAAI 2004, pp. 191–196 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balint, A.: Engineering stochastic local search for the satisfiability problem. PhD thesis. Ulm University (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balint, A., Fröhlich, A.: Improving stochastic local search for SAT with a new probability distribution. In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S. (eds.) SAT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6175, pp. 10–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tompkins, D.A.D., Hoos, H.H.: UBCSAT: An implementation and experimentation environment for SLS algorithms for SAT & MAX-SAT. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biere, A.: The evolution from limmat to NanoSAT. Technical Report 444, Dept. of Computer Science, ETH Zürich (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, H.: Sato: An efficient propositional prover. In: McCune, W. (ed.) CADE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1249, pp. 272–275. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proc. DAC 2001, pp. 530–535 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biere, A.: PicoSAT essentials. JSAT 4(2-4), 75–97 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In: Coello, C.A.C. (ed.) LION 5. LNCS, vol. 6683, pp. 507–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balint, A., Diepold, D., Gall, D., Gerber, S., Kapler, G., Retz, R.: EDACC - an advanced platform for the experiment design, administration and analysis of empirical algorithms. In: Coello, C.A.C. (ed.) LION 5. LNCS, vol. 6683, pp. 586–599. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tompkins, D.A.D., Balint, A., Hoos, H.H.: Captain jack: New variable selection heuristics in local search for SAT. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 302–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    BWGrid: Member of the German D-Grid initiative, funded by the Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) and the Ministry for Science, Research and Arts Baden-Württemberg (Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg), http://www.bw-grid.de

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Balint
    • 1
  • Armin Biere
    • 2
  • Andreas Fröhlich
    • 2
  • Uwe Schöning
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Theoretical Computer ScienceUlm UniversityUlmGermany
  2. 2.Inst. Formal Models and VerificationJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations