Relating Proof Complexity Measures and Practical Hardness of SAT

  • Matti Järvisalo
  • Arie Matsliah
  • Jakob Nordström
  • Stanislav Živný
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7514)

Abstract

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers have improved enormously in performance over the last 10–15 years and are today an indispensable tool for solving a wide range of computational problems. However, our understanding of what makes SAT instances hard or easy in practice is still quite limited. A recent line of research in proof complexity has studied theoretical complexity measures such as length, width, and space in resolution, which is a proof system closely related to state-of-the-art conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) SAT solvers. Although it seems like a natural question whether these complexity measures could be relevant for understanding the practical hardness of SAT instances, to date there has been very limited research on such possible connections. This paper sets out on a systematic study of the interconnections between theoretical complexity and practical SAT solver performance. Our main focus is on space complexity in resolution, and we report results from extensive experiments aimed at understanding to what extent this measure is correlated with hardness in practice. Our conclusion from the empirical data is that the resolution space complexity of a formula would seem to be a more fine-grained indicator of whether the formula is hard or easy than the length or width needed in a resolution proof. On the theory side, we prove a separation of general and tree-like resolution space, where the latter has been proposed before as a measure of practical hardness, and also show connections between resolution space and backdoor sets.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Computers 48(5), 506–521 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proc. DAC, pp. 530–535. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In: [1], pp. 131–153Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buss, S.R., Hoffmann, J., Johannsen, J.: Resolution trees with lemmas: Resolution refinements that characterize DLL-algorithms with clause learning. Logical Methods in Computer Science 4(4:13) (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers as resolution engines. Artificial Intelligence 175, 512–525 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atserias, A., Fichte, J.K., Thurley, M.: Clause-learning algorithms with many restarts and bounded-width resolution. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 353–373 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Resolution is not automatizable unless W[P] is tractable. In: Proc. FOCS, pp. 210–219. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonet, M.L., Galesi, N.: Optimality of size-width tradeoffs for resolution. Computational Complexity 10(4), 261–276 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atserias, A., Dalmau, V.: A combinatorial characterization of resolution width. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 74(3), 323–334 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Short proofs may be spacious: An optimal separation of space and length in resolution. In: Proc. FOCS, pp. 709–718. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ansótegui, C., Bonet, M.L., Levy, J., Manyà, F.: Measuring the hardness of SAT instances. In: Proc. AAAI, pp. 222–228. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Esteban, J.L., Torán, J.: Space bounds for resolution. Inf. Comput. 171(1), 84–97 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Esteban, J.L., Torán, J.: A combinatorial characterization of treelike resolution space. Information Processing Letters 87(6), 295–300 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams, R., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Backdoors to typical case complexity. In: Proc. IJCAI, pp. 1173–1178. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nordström, J.: Pebble games, proof complexity and time-space trade-offs. Logical Methods in Computer Science (to appear, 2012), http://www.csc.kth.se/~jakobn/research
  19. 19.
    Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theoret. Comp. Sci. 39(2-3), 297–308 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM 34(1), 209–219 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple. Journal of the ACM 48(2), 149–169 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A.A., Wigderson, A.: Space complexity in propositional calculus. SIAM Journal on Computing 31(4), 1184–1211 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Galesi, N.: Space complexity of random formulae in resolution. Random Structures and Algorithms 23(1), 92–109 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nordström, J.: New wine into old wineskins: A survey of some pebbling classics with supplemental results. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science (to appear, 2012), Draft version available at http://www.csc.kth.se/~jakobn/research/
  25. 25.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Understanding space in proof complexity: Separations and trade-offs via substitutions. In: Proc. ICS, pp. 401–416 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nordström, J.: Narrow proofs may be spacious: Separating space and width in resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing 39(1), 59–121 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nordström, J., Håstad, J.: Towards an optimal separation of space and length in resolution (Extended abstract). In: Proc. STOC, pp. 701–710 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilbert, J.R., Tarjan, R.E.: Variations of a pebble game on graphs. Technical Report STAN-CS-78-661, Stanford University (1978)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 319–351 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    Biere, A.: Lingeling, Plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010. FMV Tech. Report 10/1, Johannes Kepler University (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dilkina, B., Gomes, C.P., Sabharwal, A.: Backdoors in the Context of Learning. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 73–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beame, P., Beck, C., Impagliazzo, R.: Time-space tradeoffs in resolution: Superpolynomial lower bounds for superlinear space. In: Proc. STOC, pp. 213–232. ACM (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matti Järvisalo
    • 1
  • Arie Matsliah
    • 2
  • Jakob Nordström
    • 3
  • Stanislav Živný
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & HIITUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.IBM Research and TechnionHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  4. 4.University of OxfordUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations