Abstract
So-called Modern SAT solvers are built upon a few – but essential – ingredients: branching, learning, restarting and clause database cleaning. Most of them have been greatly improved since their first introduction, more than ten years ago. In many cases, the initial reasons that lead to their introduction do not explain anymore their current usage (for instance: very rapid restarts, aggressive clause database cleaning). Modern SAT solvers themselves share fewer and fewer properties with their ancestor, the classical backtrack search DPLL procedure.
In this paper, we explore restart strategies in the light of a new vision of SAT solvers. Following the successful results of Glucose, we consider CDCL solvers as resolution-based producers of clauses. We show that this vision is particularly salient for targeting UNSAT formulae. In a second part, we show how detecting sudden increases in the number of variable assignments can help the solver to target SAT instances too. By varying our restart strategy, we show an important improvement over Glucose 2.0, the winner of the 2011 SAT Competition, category Application SAT+UNSAT formulae. Finally we would like to point out that this new version of Glucose was the winner of the SAT Challenge 2012.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 399–404 (2009)
Biere, A.: Adaptive Restart Strategies for Conflict Driven SAT Solvers. In: Kleine Büning, H., Zhao, X. (eds.) SAT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4996, pp. 28–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Biere, A.: Picosat essentials. JSAT 4, 75–97 (2008)
Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Communication of ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)
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)
Gomes, C., Selman, B., Crato, N., Kautz, H.: Heavy-tailed phenomena in satisfiability and constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of Automated Reasoning 24, 67–100 (2000)
Huang, J.: The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 2318–2323 (2007)
Le Berre, D., Jarvisalo, M., Roussel, O., Simon, L.: SAT competitions (2002-2011), http://www.satcompetition.org/
Luby, M., Sinclair, A., Zuckerman, D.: Optimal speedup of las vegas algorithms. In: Israel Symposium on Theory of Computing Systems, pp. 128–133 (1993)
Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of DAC, pp. 530–535 (2001)
Nabeshima, H., Iwanuma, K., Inoue, K.: Glueminisat2.2.5. System Desciption, http://glueminisat.nabelab.org
Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: A Lightweight Component Caching Scheme for Satisfiability Solvers. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 294–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Silva, J.M., Sakallah, K.: Grasp - a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: ICCAD, pp. 220–227 (1996)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Audemard, G., Simon, L. (2012). Refining Restarts Strategies for SAT and UNSAT. In: Milano, M. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7514. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33557-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33558-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)