CP 2008: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming pp 618-623 | Cite as
A New Empirical Study of Weak Backdoors
Abstract
Work by Kilby, Slaney, Thiebaux and Walsh [1] showed that the backdoors and backbones of unstructured Random 3SAT instances are largely disjoint. In this work we extend this study to the consideration of backdoors in SAT encodings of structured problems. We show that the results of Kilby et al. also apply to structured problems. Further, we analyse the frequency with which individual variables appear in backdoors for specific problem instances. In all problem classes there are variables with particularly high frequencies of backdoor membership. Backbone variables that do appear in backdoors typically appear in very few.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Kilby, P., Slaney, J., Thiebaux, S., Walsh, T.: Backbones and backdoors in satisfiability. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
- 2.Williams, R., Gomes, C., Selman, B.: Backdoors to typical case complexity. In: IJCAI 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
- 3.Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 4.Long, D., Fox, M.: The 3rd IPC: Results and analysis. JAIR 20, 1–59 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bacchus, F.: The AIPS 2000 Planning Competition. AI Magazine 22(3), 47–56 (2001)Google Scholar
- 6.Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In: IJCAI, pp. 318–332 (1999)Google Scholar
- 7.Hoos, H.H., Stützle, T.: SATLIB: An Online Resource for Research on SAT. In: Gent, I., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT2000: Highlights of Satisfiability Research in the year 2000. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 283–292. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar