On the Structure of Industrial SAT Instances

  • Carlos Ansótegui
  • María Luisa Bonet
  • Jordi Levy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5732)

Abstract

During this decade, it has been observed that many real-world graphs, like the web and some social and metabolic networks, have a scale-free structure. These graphs are characterized by a big variability in the arity of nodes, that seems to follow a power-law distribution. This came as a big surprise to researchers steeped in the tradition of classical random networks.

SAT instances can also be seen as (bi-partite) graphs. In this paper we study many families of industrial SAT instances used in SAT competitions, and show that most of them also present this scale-free structure. On the contrary, random SAT instances, viewed as graphs, are closer to the classical random graph model, where arity of nodes follows a Poisson distribution with small variability. This would explain their distinct nature.

We also analyze what happens when we instantiate a fraction of the variables, at random or using some heuristics, and how the scale-free structure is modified by these instantiations. Finally, we study how the structure is modified during the execution of a SAT solver, concluding that the scale-free structure is preserved.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABL09]
    Ansótegui, C., Bonet, M.L., Levy, J.: Towards industrial-like random SAT instances. In: Proc. of the 21st Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. [AJB99]
    Albert, R., Jeong, H., Barabási, A.-L.: The diameter of the www. Nature 401, 130–131 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [AJB00]
    Albert, R., Jeong, H., Barabási, A.-L.: Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406, 378–482 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BA99]
    Barabási, A.-L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509–512 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [BDIS05]
    Boufkhad, Y., Dubois, O., Interian, Y., Selman, B.: Regular random k-sat: Properties of balanced formulas. J. of Automated Reasoning 35, 181–200 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [CSN07]
    Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R., Newman, M.E.J.: Power-law distributions in empirical data. Arxiv, 0706.1062 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. [ER59]
    Erdós, P., Rényi, A.: On random graphs. Publicationes Mathematicae 6, 290–297 (1959)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [ES03]
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [GFSB04]
    Gomes, C.P., Fernández, C., Selman, B., Bessière, C.: Statistical regimes across constrainedness regions. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) CP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3258, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [GHPW99]
    Gent, I.P., Hoos, H.H., Prosser, P., Walsh, T.: Morphing: Combining structure and randomness. In: Proc. of the 16th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1999, pp. 654–660 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. [JW90]
    Jeroslow, R.G., Wang, J.: Solving propositional satisfiability problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 1, 167–187 (1990)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [KS03]
    Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Ten challenges redux: Recent progress in propositional reasoning and search. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [KS07]
    Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: The state of SAT. Discrete Applied Mathematics 155(12), 1514–1524 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [LA97]
    Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In: Smolka, G. (ed.) CP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1330, pp. 341–355. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  15. [LADW05]
    Li, L., Alderson, D., Doyle, J.C., Willinger, W.: Towards a theory of scale-free graphs: Definition, properties, and implications. Internet Mathematics 2(4), 431–523 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [Sel00]
    Selman, B.: Satisfiability testing: Recent developments and challenge problems. In: Proc. of the 15th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2000, p. 178 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. [SKM97]
    Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., McAllester, D.A.: Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In: Proc. of the 15th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1997, pp. 50–54 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. [Wal01]
    Walsh, T.: Search on high degree graphs. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2001, pp. 266–274 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. [WS98]
    Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [XHHLB08]
    Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H., Leyton-Brown, K.: SATzilla: Portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 32, 565–606 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Ansótegui
    • 1
  • María Luisa Bonet
    • 2
  • Jordi Levy
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitat de Lleida (DIEI, UdL)Spain
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (LSI, UPC)Spain
  3. 3.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA, CSIC)Spain

Personalised recommendations