Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An overview of parallel SAT solving

  • Survey
  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers are currently very effective in practice. However, there are still many challenging problems for SAT solvers. Nowadays, extra computational power is no longer coming from higher processor frequencies. At the same time, multicore architectures are becoming predominant. Exploiting this new architecture is essential for the evolution of SAT solvers. Due to the increasing interest in parallel SAT solving, it is important to give an overview of what has been done so far. This paper presents an overview of parallel SAT solving and it is expected to be a valuable document for researchers in this field. This overview covers the main topics of parallel SAT solving, namely, different approaches and a variety of clause sharing strategies. Additionally, an evaluation of multicore SAT solvers is presented, showing the evolution of multicore SAT solvers over the last years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arbelaez, A., & Hamadi, Y. (2011). Improving parallel local search for SAT. In Learning and intelligent optimization (pp. 46–60).

  2. Asín, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., & Rodríguez-Carbonell, E. (2010). Practical algorithms for unsatisfiability proof and core generation in SAT solvers. AI Communications, 23(2–3), 145–157.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Audemard, G., Bordeaux, L., Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., & Sais, L. (2008). A generalized framework for conflict analysis. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 21–27).

  4. Audemard, G., & Simon, L. (2009). Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 399–404).

  5. Bacchus, F., & Winter, J. (2003). Effective preprocessing with hyper-resolution and equality reduction. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 341–355).

  6. Baptista, L., & Marques-Silva, J. (2000). Using randomization and learning to solve hard real-world instances of satisfiability. In International conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (pp. 489–494).

  7. Bayardo, R. J., & Schrag, R. C. (1997). Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 203–208).

  8. Biere, A. (2008). Picosat essentials. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 4(2–4), 75–97.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Biere, A. (2009). PrecoSAT. SAT Competition, Solver Description.

  10. Biere, A. (2010). Lingeling, plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010. SAT Race, Solver Description.

  11. Blochinger, W. (2005). Towards robustness in parallel SAT solving. In International conference on parallel computing (pp. 301–308).

  12. Blochinger, W., Sinz, C., & Küchlin, W. (2003). Parallel propositional satisfiability checking with distributed dynamic learning. Journal of Parallel Computing, 29(7), 969–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blochinger, W., Westje, W., Kuchlin, W., & Wedeniwski, S. (2005). ZetaSAT—Boolean SATisfiability solving on desktop grids. In International symposium on cluster computing and the grid (pp. 1079–1086).

  14. Böhm, M., & Speckenmeyer, E. (1996). A fast parallel SAT-solver—Efficient workload balancing. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 17(3–4), 381–400.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Bordeaux, L., Hamadi, Y., & Samulowitz, H. (2009). Experiments with massively parallel constraint solving. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 443–448).

  16. Chrabakh, W., & Wolski, R. (2003). GridSAT: A Chaff-based distributed SAT solver for the grid. In International supercomputing conference (pp. 37–49).

  17. Chu, G., Harwood, A., & Stuckey. P. J. (2009). Cache conscious data structures for Boolean satisfiability solvers. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 6, 99–120.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Chu, G., Schulte, C., & Stuckey, P. J. (2009). Confidence-based work stealing in parallel constraint programming. In International conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (pp. 226–241).

  19. Chu, G., & Stuckey, P. J. (2008). PMiniSAT : A parallelization of M iniSAT 2.0. SAT Race, Solver Description.

  20. Clearwater, S. H., Huberman, B. A., & Hogg, T. (1991). Cooperative solution of constraint satisfaction problems. Science, 254(5035), 1181–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, 5(7), 394–397.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1960). A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM, 7(3), 201–215.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Dequen, G., Vander-Swalmen, P., & Krajecki, M. (2009). Toward easy parallel SAT solving. In International conference on tools with artificial intelligence (pp. 425–432).

  24. Edmund, M. Y., Durfee, E. H., Ishida, T., & Kuwabara, K. (1992). Distributed constraint satisfaction for formalizing distributed problem solving. In International conference on distributed computing systems (pp. 614–621).

  25. Eén, N., & Biere, A. (2005). Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 61–75).

  26. Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2003). An extensible SAT-solver. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 502–518).

  27. Feldman, R., Monien, B., Mysliwietz, P., & Vornberger, O. (1990). Distributed game tree search. In Parallel algorithms for machine intelligence and pattern recognition (pp. 66–101). Springer-Verlag.

  28. Feldmann, R., Monien, B., & Schamberger, S. (2000). A distributed algorithm to evaluate quantified Boolean formulae. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 285–290).

  29. Feldman, Y., Dershowitz, N., & Hanna, Z. (2005). Parallel multithreaded satisfiability solver: Design and implementation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 128(3), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Forman, S., & Segre, A. (2002). NAGSAT: A randomized, complete, parallel solver for 3-SAT. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 236–243).

  31. Gent, I. P., Jefferson, C., Miguel, I., Moore, N. C., Nightingale, P., Prosser, P., et al. (2011). A preliminary review of literature on parallel constraint solving. In Workshop on parallel methods for constraint solving.

  32. Gil, L., Flores, P., & Silveira, L. M. (2008). PMSat: A parallel version of MiniSAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 6, 71–98.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Goldberg, E. (2006). Determinization of resolution by an algorithm operating on complete assignments. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 90–95).

  34. Goldberg, E. (2008). A decision-making procedure for resolution-based SAT-solvers. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 119–132).

  35. Goldberg, E., & Novikov, Y. (2002). BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In Design, automation, and test in Europe (pp. 142–149).

  36. Gomes, C. P., Selman, B., & Kautz, H. (1998). Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 431–437).

  37. Guo, L., Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., & Sais, L. (2010). Diversification and intensification in parallel SAT solving. In International conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (pp. 252–265).

  38. Hamadi, Y. (1999). Optimal distributed arc-consistency. In International conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (pp. 219–233).

  39. Hamadi, Y. (2002). Interleaved backtracking in distributed constraint networks. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 11(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hamadi, Y. (2003). Disolver: A distributed constraint solver. Technical Report MSR-TR-2003-91, Microsoft Research.

  41. Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Piette, C., & Sais, L. (2011). Deterministic parallel DPLL. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 7(4), 127–132.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., & Sais, L. (2009). Control-based clause sharing in parallel SAT solving. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 499–504).

  43. Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., & Sais, L. (2009). ManySAT: A parallel SAT solver. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 6, 245–262.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Hamadi, Y., Marques-Silva, J., & Wintersteiger, C. M. (2011). Lazy decomposition for distributed decision procedures. In International workshop on parallel and distributed methods in verification (pp. 43–54).

  45. Hamadi, Y., & Ringwelski, G. (2011). Boosting distributed constraint satisfaction. Journal of heuristics, 17(3), 251–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Han, H., & Somenzi, F. (2009). On-the-fly clause improvement. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 209–222).

  47. Hertel, P., Bacchus, F., Pitassi, T., & Gelder, A. V. (2008). Clause learning can effectively p-simulate general propositional resolution. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 283–290).

  48. Hyvärinen, A., Junttila, T., & Niemelä, I. (2006). A distribution method for solving SAT in grids. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 430–435).

  49. Jacobson, V. (1988). Congestion avoidance and control. In Special interest group on data communication (pp. 314–329).

  50. Jurkowiak, B., Li, C. M., & Utard, G. (2001). Parallelizing satz using dynamic workload balancing. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 205–211).

  51. Kalinnik, N., Schubert, T., Ábrahám, E., Wimmer, R., & Becker, B. (2009). Picoso—A parallel interval constraint solver. In International conference on parallel and distributed processing techniques and applications (pp. 473–479).

  52. Kasif, S. (1990). On the parallel complexity of discrete relaxation in constraint satisfaction networks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 45(3), 275–286.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Kottler, S. (2010). SAT solving with reference points. In international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 143–157).

  54. Kottler, S., & Kaufmann, M. (2011). SArTagnan—A parallel portfolio SAT solver with lockless physical clause sharing. In Pragmatics of SAT workshop.

  55. Kullmann, O. (2000). Investigations on autark assignments. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 107, 99–137.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Kunz, W., & Pradhan, D. K. (992). Recursive learning: An attractive alternative to the decision tree for test generation in digital circuits. In International test conference (pp. 816–825).

  57. Le Berre, D., & Parrain, A. (2010). The sat4j library, release 2.2 system description. Journal on Satisfiability Boolean Modeling and Computation, 7, 59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lewis, M., Marin, P., Schubert, T., Narizzano, M., Becker, B., & Giunchiglia, E. (2009). PaQuBE: Distributed QBF solving with advanced knowledge sharing. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 509–523).

  59. Lewis, M., Schubert, T., & Becker, B. (2007). Multithreaded SAT solving. In Asia and south pacific design automation conference (pp. 926–931).

  60. Lewis, M., Schubert, T., & Becker, B. (2009). QMiraXT—A multithreaded QBF solver. In Methoden und beschreibungssprachen zur modellierung und verifikation von Schaltungen und systemen (pp. 7–16).

  61. Luby, M., Sinclair, A., & Zuckerman, D. (1993). Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Journal of Information Processing Letters, 47(4), 173–180.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Lynce, I., & Marques-Silva, J. (2005). Efficient data structures for backtrack search SAT solvers. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 43(1–4), 137–152.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Mailler, R., & Lesser, V. (2004). Solving distributed constraint optimization problems using cooperative mediation. In International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 438–445).

  64. Manthey, N. (2011). Parallel SAT solving—Using more cores. In Pragmatics of SAT workshop.

  65. Marin, P., Lewis, M., Schubert, T., Narizzano, M., Becker, B., & Giunchiglia, E. (2009). Comparison of knowledge sharing strategies in a parallel QBF solver. In Workshop on parallel satisfiability solving (pp. 161–167).

  66. Marques-Silva, J., Lynce, I., & Malik, S. (2009). Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In Handbook of satisfiability (Vol. 185, pp. 131–153). IOS Press.

  67. Marques-Silva, J., & Sakallah, K. A. (1999). GRASP—A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48. 506–521.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  68. Martins, R., Manquinho, V., & Lynce, I. (2010). Improving search space splitting for parallel SAT solving. In International conference on tools with artificial intelligence (pp. 336–343).

  69. Modi, P. J., Shen, W. M., Tambe, M., & Yokoo, M. (2005). Adopt: Asynchronous distributed constraint optimization with quality guarantees. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 16(1–2), 149–180.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  70. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Design automation conference (pp. 530–535).

  71. Nguyen, T., & Deville, Y. (1998). A distributed arc-consistency algorithm. Science of Computer Programming, 30, 227–250.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Ohmura, K., & Ueda, K. (2009). c-SAT: A parallel SAT solver for clusters. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 524–537).

  73. Pham, D. N., Gretton, C. (2009). gNovelty(v. 2). SAT Competition, Solver Description.

  74. Piette, C., Hamadi, Y., & Lakhdar, S. (2008). Vivifying propositional clausal formulae. In European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 525–529).

  75. Pilarski, S., & Hu, G. (2002). SAT with partial clauses and back-leaps. In Design automation conference (pp. 743–746).

  76. Pipatsrisawat, K., & Darwiche, A. (2007). A lightweight component caching scheme for satisfiability solvers. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 294–299).

  77. Pipatsrisawat, K., & Darwiche, A. (2011). On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers as resolution engines. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 512–525.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  78. Plaza, S., Kountanis, I., Andraus, Z., Bertacco, V., & Mudge, T. (2006). Advances and insights into parallel SAT solving. In International workshop on logic and synthesis (pp. 188–194).

  79. Plaza, S., Markov, I., & Bertacco, V. (2008). Low-latency SAT solving on multicore processors with priority scheduling and XOR partitioning. In International workshop on logic and synthesis.

  80. Prestwich, S. D., & Lynce, I. (2006). Local search for unsatisfiability. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 283–296).

  81. Rolf, C. C., & Kuchcinski, K. (2008). Load-balancing methods for parallel and distributed constraint solving. In Interational conference on cluster computing (pp. 304–309).

  82. Rolf, C. C., & Kuchcinski, K. (2010). Combining parallel search and parallel consistency in constraint programming. In TRICS workshop at the international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (pp. 38–52).

  83. Roll, A. (2001). Criticality and parallelism in GSAT. In Workshop on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 150–161).

  84. Ryan, L. (2004). Efficient algorithms for clause-learning SAT solvers. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University.

  85. Schubert, T., Lewis, M., & Becker, B. (2005). PaMira—A parallel SAT solver with knowledge sharing. In International workshop on microprocessor test and verification (pp. 29–36).

  86. Schubert, T., Lewis, M., & Becker, B. (2009). PaMiraXT: Parallel SAT solving with threads and message passing. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 6, 203–222.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  87. Schubert, T., Lewis, M., & Becker, B. (2010). Antom—Solver description. SAT Race, Solver Description.

  88. Schulz, S., & Blochinger, W. (2010). Parallel SAT solving on peer-to-peer desktop grids. Journal of Grid Computing, 8, 443–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Selman, B., Kautz, H. A., & Cohen, B. (1996). Local search strategies for satisfiability testing. In Cliques, coloring, and satisfiability: Second DIMACS implementation challenge (Vol. 26, pp. 521–532). American Mathematical Society.

  90. Selman, B., Levesque, H., & Mitchell, D. (1992). A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 440–446).

  91. Sheeran, M., & Stalmarck, G. (2000). A tutorial on Stalmarck’s proof procedure for propositional logic. Formal Methods in System Design, 16, 23–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Silaghi, M.-C., Sam-haroud, D., & Faltings, B. V. (2000). Asynchronous search with aggregations. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 917–922).

  93. Singer, D. (2006). Parallel resolution of the satisfiability problem: A survey. In Parallel combinatorial optimization (pp. 123–147). Wiley.

  94. Singer, D., & Monnet, A. (2008). JaCk-SAT: A new parallel scheme to solve the satisfiability problem (SAT) based on join-and-check. In Parallel processing and applied mathematics (pp. 249–258).

  95. Sinz, C., Blochinger, W., & Küchlin, W. (2001). PaSAT—Parallel SAT-Checking with lemma exchange: Implementation and applications. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 9, 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Snir, M., Otto, S., Huss-Lederman, S., Walker, D., & Dongarra, J. (1998). MPI-the complete reference. MIT Press.

  97. Soos, M. (2010). CryptoMiniSat 2.5.0. SAT Race, Solver Description.

  98. Söreasson, N., & Eée, N. (2008). MINISAT 2.1 and MINISAT+ + 1.0—SAT race 2008 editions. SAt Race, Solver Description.

  99. Sripriya, G., Bundy, A., & Smaill, A. (2009). Concurrent-distributed programming techniques for SAT using DPLL-stalmarck. In Workshop on parallel satisfiability solving (pp. 168–175).

  100. Tsuyuzaki, K., Ohmura, K., & Ueda, K. (2009). Satake: Solver description. SAT Competition, Solver Description.

  101. Valiant, L., & Vazirani, V. (1985). NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. In Symposium on theory of computing (pp. 458–463).

  102. Van Gelder, A. (1999). Autarky pruning in propositional model elimination reduces failure redundancy. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 23, 137–193.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  103. Vander-Swalmen, P., Dequen, G., & Krajecki, M. (2009). A collaborative approach for multi-threaded SAT solving. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 37(3), 324–342.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  104. Vautard, J., Lallouet, A., & Hamadi, Y. (2010). A parallel solving algorithm for quantified constraints problems. In International conference on tools with artificial intelligence (pp. 271–274).

  105. Williams, R., Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2003). Backdoors to typical case complexity. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1173–1178).

  106. Wintersteiger, C. M., Hamadi, Y., & de Moura, L. M. (2009). A concurrent portfolio approach to smt solving. In Computer aided verification (pp. 715–720).

  107. Yokoo, M., Durfee, E. H., Ishida, T., & Kuwabara, K. (1998). The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: Formalization and algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 10, 673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Zhang, H. (1997). SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In International conference on automated deduction (pp. 272–275).

  109. Zhang, H., Bonacina, M. P., Bonacina, M. P., & Hsiang, J. (1996). PSATO: A distributed propositional prover and its application to quasigroup problems. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 21, 543–560.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  110. Zhang, L. (2005). On subsumption removal and on-the-fly CNF simplification. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 482–489).

  111. Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., & Malik, S. (2001). Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In International conference on computer-aided design (pp. 279–285).

  112. Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2003). Cache performance of SAT solvers: A case study for efficient implementation of algorithms. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 287–298).

  113. Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2003). Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In Design, automation, and test in Europe (pp. 10880–10885).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IST/INESC-ID, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ruben Martins, Vasco Manquinho & Inês Lynce

Authors
  1. Ruben Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vasco Manquinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Inês Lynce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruben Martins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martins, R., Manquinho, V. & Lynce, I. An overview of parallel SAT solving. Constraints 17, 304–347 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-012-9121-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-012-9121-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation