Advertisement

Cube and Conquer: Guiding CDCL SAT Solvers by Lookaheads

  • Marijn J. H. Heule
  • Oliver Kullmann
  • Siert Wieringa
  • Armin Biere
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7261)

Abstract

Satisfiability (SAT) is considered as one of the most important core technologies in formal verification and related areas. Even though there is steady progress in improving practical SAT solving, there are limits on scalability of SAT solvers. We address this issue and present a new approach, called cube-and-conquer, targeted at reducing solving time on hard instances. This two-phase approach partitions a problem into many thousands (or millions) of cubes using lookahead techniques. Afterwards, a conflict-driven solver tackles the problem, using the cubes to guide the search. On several hard competition benchmarks, our hybrid approach outperforms both lookahead and conflict-driven solvers. Moreover, because cube-and-conquer is natural to parallelize, it is a competitive alternative for solving SAT problems in parallel.

Keywords

Partial Assignment Unit Clause Bound Model Check Hard Instance Decision Heuristic 
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.
    Ahmed, T., Kullmann, O., Snevily, H.: On the van der Waerden numbers w(2; 3, t). Tech. Rep. arXiv:1102.5433 [math.CO], arXiv (February 2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacchus, F.: Enhancing Davis Putnam with extended binary clause reasoning. In: AAAI 2002, pp. 613–619 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Beek, P.: Backtracking search algorithms. In: Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Constraint Programming, ch. 4, pp. 85–134 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biere, A.: Bounded model checking. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 14, pp. 455–481Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biere, A.: Lingeling, Plingeling, Picosat and Precosat at SAT race 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. FAIA, vol. 185. IOS Press (February 2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubois, O., Dequen, G.: A backbone-search heuristic for efficient solving of hard 3-SAT formulae. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 248–253. Morgan Kaufmann (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89(4), 543–560 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamadi, Y.: Conclusion to the special issue on parallel SAT solving. JSAT 6(4), 263 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Sais, L.: ManySAT: a parallel SAT solver. JSAT 6(4), 245–262 (2009)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haralick, R.M., Elliott, G.L.: Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artif. Intell. 14(3), 263–313 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harvey, W.D., Ginsberg, M.L.: Limited discrepancy search. In: IJCAI 1995, pp. 607–613 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H.: Look-Ahead Based SAT Solvers. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 5, vol. 185, pp. 155–184 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hyvärinen, A.E.J., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Partitioning SAT Instances for Distributed Solving. In: Fermüller, C.G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-17. LNCS, vol. 6397, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hyvärinen, A.E.J., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Grid-Based SAT Solving with Iterative Partitioning and Clause Learning. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, pp. 385–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kleine Büning, H., Kullmann, O.: Minimal Unsatisfiability and Autarkies. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 11, vol. 185, pp. 339–401 (February 2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kullmann, O.: Investigating the behaviour of a SAT solver on random formulas. Tech. Rep. CSR 23-2002, University of Wales Swansea, Computer Science Report Series, 119 pages (2002), http://www-compsci.swan.ac.uk/reports/2002.html
  19. 19.
    Kullmann, O.: Fundaments of Branching Heuristics. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 7, vol. 185, pp. 205–244 (February 2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kullmann, O.: The OKlibrary: Introducing a ”holistic” research platform for (generalised) SAT solving. Studies in Logic 2(1), 20–53 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kullmann, O.: Green-Tao Numbers and SAT. In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S. (eds.) SAT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6175, pp. 352–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kullmann, O.: Computing ordinary and palindromic van der Waerden numbers via collaboration between look-ahead and conflict-driven SAT solvers (in preparation, February 2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li, C.M.: Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: IJCAI, vol. (1), pp. 366–371 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-Driven Clause Learning SAT Solvers. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 4, vol. 185, pp. 131–153 (February 2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mijnders, S., de Wilde, B., Heule, M.J.H.: Symbiosis of search and heuristics for random 3-SAT. In: Mitchell, D., Ternovska, E. (eds.) LaSh 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wieringa, S., Niemenmaa, M., Heljanko, K.: Tarmo: A framework for parallelized bounded model checking. In: Brim, L., van de Pol, J. (eds.) PDMC. EPTCS, vol. 14, pp. 62–76 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, H.: Combinatorial designs by SAT solvers. In: Biere, et al. (eds.) [6], ch. 17, pp. 533–568Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marijn J. H. Heule
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oliver Kullmann
    • 3
  • Siert Wieringa
    • 4
  • Armin Biere
    • 2
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Johannes Kepler University LinzAustria
  3. 3.Swansea UniversityUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Aalto University HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations