Advertisement

Multi-flip networks: Parallelizing genSAT

  • Antje Strohmaier
Computer Perception / Neural Nets
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1303)

Abstract

Local hill-climbing algorithms to solve the satisfiability problem have shown to be more efficient than complete systematic methods in many aspects. Many variants and refinements have been developed in the last few years. We present a neural network approach to evaluate such local search algorithms in a parallel manner, i.e. enlarging the neighbourhood of each possible move in the search space. We present an approach which allows the simultaneous change of truth value assignment for more than one variable at a time, such that the theoretical properties of the considered algorithms are preserved, and give experimental evidence that this algorithm is indeed faster than the respective sequential variants.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Emile Aarts and Jan Korst. Simulated Annealing and Boltzmann Machines. John Wiley & Sons, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Boissin and J. L. Lutton. A parallel simulated annealing algorithm. Parallel Computing, 19:859–872, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. M. Crawford and L. D. Auton. Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 21–27. MIT press, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. P. Gent and T. Walsh. Towards an understanding of hill-climbing procedures for SAT. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 28–33. MIT press, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Hertz, A. Krogh, and R. G. Palmer. Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Hölldobler, H. Hoos, A. Strohmaier, and A. Weiß. The GSAT/SA-Familiy — Relating greedy satisifability testing to simulated annealing. Technical Report AIDA-94-17, TH Darmstadt, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. J. Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, pages 2554–2558, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Konolige. Easy to be hard: difficult problems for greedy algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowlege Representation and Reasoning, pages 374–378, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Pinkas. The equivalence of energy minimization and propositional calculus satisfiability. Technical Report WUCS-90-03, Washington University, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Selman, H. A. Kautz, and B. Cohen. Noise strategies for improving local search. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, pages 337–343,1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Selman, H. Levesque, and D. Mitchell. A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 440–446. MIT press, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. M. Spears. Simulated annealing for hard satisfiability problems. Technical report, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D.C., 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antje Strohmaier
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut KI, Fakultät Informatik, TU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations