Advertisement

Speedup Techniques Utilized in Modern SAT Solvers

An Analysis in the MIRA Environment
  • Matthew D. T. Lewis
  • Tobias Schubert
  • Bernd W. Becker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3569)

Abstract

This paper describes and compares features and techniques modern SAT solvers utilize to maximize performance. Here we focus on: Implication Queue Sorting (IQS) combined with Early Conflict Detection Based BCP (ECDB); and a modified decision heuristic based on the combination of Variable State Independent Decaying Sum (VSIDS), Berkmin, and Siege’s Variable Move to Front (VMTF). These features were implemented and compared within the framework of the MIRA SAT solver. The efficient implementation and analysis of these features are presented and the speedup and robustness each feature provides is demonstrated. Finally, with everything enabled (ECDB with IQS and advanced decision heuristics), MIRA was able to consistently outperform zChaff and even Forklift on the benchmarks provided, solving 37 out of 111 industrial benchmarks compared to zChaff’s 21 and Forklift’s 28.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th DAC (July 2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: a Fast and Robust Sat-Solver. In: DATE 2002, Paris, France, March 2002, pp. 142–149 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lawrence, R.: Efficient Algorithms for Clause-Learning SAT Solvers. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University (February 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis, M., Schubert, T., Becker, B.: Early Conflict Detection Based BCP for SAT Solving. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory. Journal of the ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A Machine Program for Theorem-Proving. Communications of the ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 506–521 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fu, Z., Mahajan, Y., Malik, S.: New Features of the SAT 2004 Version of zChaff. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biere, A.: The Evolution from Limmat to Nanosat. Technical Report 444, Dept. of Computer Science, ETH Zürich (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Van Gelder, A.: Generalizations of Watched Literals for Backtracking Search (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nadel, A.: The Jerusat SAT Solver. Master’s thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Efficient Data Structures for Fast SAT Solvers (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alfredsson, J.: The SAT Solver Oepir. In: SAT 2004 Competition: Solver Descriptions (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S.: Efficient Conflict Driven Learning in a Boolean Satisfiability Solver. In: ICCAD 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kautz, H., Horvitz, E., Ruan, Y., Gomes, C., Selman, B.: Dynamic Restart Policies. In: The Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: http://eigold.tripod.com/BerkMin.html
  21. 21.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Cache Performance of SAT Solvers: A Case Study for Efficient Implementation of Algorithms. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 287–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew D. T. Lewis
    • 1
  • Tobias Schubert
    • 1
  • Bernd W. Becker
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Computer Architecture, Institute of Computer ScienceAlbert-Ludwigs-University of FreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations