Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) has seen many successful applications in various fields such as Electronic Design Automation and Artificial Intelligence. However, in some cases, it may be required/preferable to use variations of the general SAT problem. In this paper, we consider one important variation, the Partial MAX-SAT problem. Unlike SAT, Partial MAX-SAT has certain constraints (clauses) that are marked as relaxable and the rest are hard, i.e. non-relaxable. The objective is to find a variable assignment that satisfies all non-relaxable clauses together with the maximum number of relaxable ones. We have implemented two solvers for the Partial MAX-SAT problem using a contemporary SAT solver, zChaff. The first approach is a novel diagnosis based algorithm; it iteratively analyzes the UNSAT core of the current SAT instance and eliminates the core through a modification of the problem instance by adding relaxation variables. The second approach is encoding based; it constructs an efficient auxiliary counter that constrains the number of relaxed clauses and supports binary search or linear scan for the optimal solution. Both solvers are complete as they guarantee the optimality of the solution. We discuss the relative strengths and thus applicability of the two solvers for different solution scenarios. Further, we show how both techniques benefit from the persistent learning techniques of incremental SAT. Experiments using practical instances of this problem show significant improvements over the best known solvers.


Binary Search Full Adder Half Adder Relaxation Variable Original Clause 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Argelich, J., Manyà, F.: Solving Over-Constrained Problems with SAT Technology. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cha, B., Iwama, K., Kambayashi, Y., Miyazaki, S.: Local search algorithms for partial MAXSAT. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 263–268 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coudert, O.: On solving covering problems. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Design Automation Conference, pp. 197–202 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: MiniSat – A SAT solver with conflict-clause minimization. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-completeness. Freemand & Co., New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: A fast and robust SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the Design Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 142–149 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Johnson, D.S.: Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9, 256–278 (1974)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katz, R.H.: Contemporary Logic Design. Benjamin Cummings/Addison Wesley Publishing Company (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B., Jiang, Y.: A general stochastic approach to solving problems with hard and soft constraints. In: Du, D., Gu, J., Pardalos, P.M. (eds.) The Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koren, I.: Computer Arithmetic Algorithms. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, X.Y.: Optimization Algorithms for the Minimum-Cost Satisfiability Problem. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 162 pages (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manquinho, V., Marques-Silva, J.: Search pruning techniques in SAT-based branch-and-bound algorithms for the binate covering problem. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 21, 505–516 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 506–521 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miyazaki, S., Iwama, K., Kambayashi, Y.: Database queries as combinatorial optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pp. 448–454 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan, L.: Efficient algorithms for clause-learning SAT solvers. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strichman, O.: Prunning techniques for the SAT-based bounded model checking problem. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Velev, M.: Sat benchmarks (2006),
  20. 20.
    Xu, H.: subSAT: A Formulation for Relaxed Satisfiability and its Applications. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 160 pages (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: Proceedings of the Design Automation and Test in Europe (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhaohui Fu
    • 1
  • Sharad Malik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations