Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25525guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
research-article

Probabilistic generalization of backdoor trees with application to SAT

Published: 07 February 2023 Publication History

Abstract

The concept of Strong Backdoor Sets (SBS) for Constraint Satisfaction Problems is well known as one of the attempts to exploit structural peculiarities in hard instances. However, in practice, finding an SBS for a particular instance is often harder than solving it. Recently, a probabilistic weakened variant of the SBS was introduced: in the SBS, all subproblems must be polynomially solvable, whereas in the probabilistic SBS only a large fraction ũ of them should have this property. This new variant of backdoors called ũ-backdoors makes it possible to use the Monte Carlo method and meta-heuristic optimization to find ũ-backdoors with ũ very close to 1, and relatively fast. Despite the fact that in a ũ-backdoor-based decomposition a portion of hard subproblems remain, in practice the narrowing of the search space often allows solving the problem faster with such a backdoor than without it. In this paper, we significantly improve on the concept of ũ-backdoors by extending this concept to backdoor trees: we introduce ũ-backdoor trees, show the interconnections between SBS, ũ-backdoors, and the corresponding backdoor trees, and establish some new theoretical properties of backdoor trees. In the experimental part of the paper, we show that moving from the metaheuristic search for ũ-backdoors to that of ũ-backdoor trees allows drastically reducing the time required to construct the required decompositions without compromising their quality.

References

[1]
Biere, A. 2021. CaDiCaL SAT solver, commit ca9bff0. https://github.com/arminbiere/cadical. Accessed: 2022-0810.
[2]
Biere, A. 2022. Kissat SAT solver, commit 97917dd. https://github.com/arminbiere/kissat. Accessed: 2022-08-10.
[3]
Chang, C.-L.; and Lee, R. C.-T. 1973. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, Inc.
[4]
Cormen, T.; Leiserson, C.; and Rivest, R. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press.
[5]
Dilkina, B.; Gomes, C. P.; Malitsky, Y.; Sabharwal, A.; and Sellmann, M. 2009. Backdoors to Combinatorial Optimization: Feasibility and Optimality. In van Hoeve, W.-J.; and Hooker, J. N., eds., CPAIOR, 56-70. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[6]
Dilkina, B.; Gomes, C. P.; and Sabharwal, A. 2007. Tradeoffs in the Complexity of Backdoor Detection. In Bessière, C., ed., Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 256-270. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[7]
Doerr, B.; Le, H. P.; Makhmara, R.; and Nguyen, T. D. 2017. Fast Genetic Algorithms. In GECCO, 777-784.
[8]
Drechsler, R.; Junttila, T. A.; and Niemelä, I. 2021. Non-Clausal SAT and ATPG. In Biere, A.; Heule, M.; van Maaren, H.; and Walsh, T., eds., Handbook of Satisfiability - Second Edition, volume 336 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 1047-1086. IOS Press.
[9]
Een, N.; and Sörensson, N. 2004. An Extensible SAT-solver. In SAT, 502-518.
[10]
Feller, W. 1971. An Introduction to probability theory and its applications, volume 2. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2 edition.
[11]
Ferber, A. M.; Song, J.; Dilkina, B.; and Yue, Y. 2022. Learning Pseudo-Backdoors for Mixed Integer Programs. In Schaus, P., ed., CPAIOR, volume 13292 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 91-102. Springer.
[12]
Fichte, J. K.; and Szeider, S. 2011. Backdoors to Tractable Answer-Set Programming. In IJCAI, 863-868.
[13]
Gaspers, S.; and Kaploun, A. 2022. Faster Algorithms for Weak Backdoors. In AAAI, 3741-3748. AAAI Press.
[14]
Gaspers, S.; and Szeider, S. 2012a. Backdoors to Acyclic SAT. In ICALP, 363-374.
[15]
Gaspers, S.; and Szeider, S. 2012b. Backdoors to Satisfaction, 287-317. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[16]
Gaspers, S.; and Szeider, S. 2012c. Strong Backdoors to Nested Satisfiability. In SAT, 72-85.
[17]
Hemaspaandra, L. A.; and Narváez, D. E. 2017. The Opacity of Backbones. In AAAI, 3900-3906.
[18]
Hemaspaandra, L. A.; and Narváez, D. E. 2021. Existence versus exploitation: the opacity of backdoors and backbones. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 10: 297-308.
[19]
Karp, R. M.; Luby, M.; and Madras, N. 1989. Monte-Carlo Approximation Algorithms for Enumeration Problems. J. Algorithms, 10(3): 429-448.
[20]
Khalil, E. B.; Vaezipoor, P.; and Dilkina, B. 2022. Finding Backdoors to Integer Programs: A Monte Carlo Tree Search Framework. In AAAI, 3786-3795. AAAI Press.
[21]
Kilby, P.; Slaney, J.; Thiebaux, S.; and Walsh, T. 2005. Backbones and Backdoors in Satisfiability. In AAAI, 1368-1373.
[22]
Luke, S. 2013. Essentials of Metaheuristics. Lulu, second edition.
[23]
Marques-Silva, J.; Lynce, I.; and Malik, S. 2009. Conflict-Driven Clause Learning SAT Solvers. In Handbook of satisfiability, volume 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 131-153.
[24]
Misra, N.; Ordyniak, S.; Raman, V.; and Szeider, S. 2013. Upper and Lower Bounds for Weak Backdoor Set Detection. In SAT, volume 7962 of LNCS, 394-402.
[25]
Molitor, P.; and Mohnke, J. 2007. Equivalence checking of digital circuits: fundamentals, principles, methods. Springer.
[26]
Motwani, R.; and Raghavan, P. 1995. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
[27]
Nocedal, J.; and Wright, S. 2006. Numerical Optimization. Springer.
[28]
Pavlenko, A. 2022. EvoGuess. https://github.com/ctlab/EvoGuess/releases/tag/v2.0.0. Accessed: 2022-08-10.
[29]
Samer, M.; and Szeider, S. 2008. Backdoor Trees. In AAAI, volume 1, 363-368. AAAI Press.
[30]
Semenov, A.; Pavlenko, A.; Chivilikhin, D.; and Kochemazov, S. 2022. On Probabilistic Generalization of Backdoors in Boolean Satisfiability. In AAAI, volume 36, 10353-10361.
[31]
Tseitin, G. S. 1970. On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus. Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, Seminars in mathematics, 115-125.
[32]
Williams, R.; Gomes, C. P.; and Selman, B. 2003. Backdoors To Typical Case Complexity. In IJCAI, 1173-1178.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Strong Backdoors for Default LogicACM Transactions on Computational Logic10.1145/365502425:3(1-24)Online publication date: 30-Mar-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings
AAAI'23/IAAI'23/EAAI'23: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence
February 2023
16496 pages
ISBN:978-1-57735-880-0

Sponsors

  • Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

AAAI Press

Publication History

Published: 07 February 2023

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Strong Backdoors for Default LogicACM Transactions on Computational Logic10.1145/365502425:3(1-24)Online publication date: 30-Mar-2024

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media