Article

The Impact of Branching Heuristics in Propositional Satisfiability Algorithms

Author:

João P. Marques SilvaAuthors Info & Claims

EPIA '99: Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence

Pages 62 - 74

Published: 21 September 1999 Publication History

Abstract

This paper studies the practical impact of the branching heuristics used in Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) algorithms, when applied to solving real-world instances of SAT. In addition, different SAT algorithms are experimentally evaluated. The main conclusion of this study is that even though branching heuristics are crucial for solving SAT, other aspects of the organization of SAT algorithms are also essential. Moreover, we provide empirical evidence that for practical instances of SAT, the search pruning techniques included in the most competitive SAT algorithms may be of more fundamental significance than branching heuristics.

References

[1]

P. Barth. A Davis-Putnam enumeration procedure for linear pseudo-boolean optimization. Technical Report MPI-I-2-003, MPI, January 1995.

[2]

R. Bayardo Jr. and R. Schrag. Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997.

[3]

M. Bruynooghe. Analysis of dependencies to improve the behaviour of logic programs. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 293-305, 1980.

[4]

M. Buro and H. Kleine-Büning. Report on a SAT competition. Technical report, University of Paderborn, November 1992.

[5]

J. Crawford and L. Auton. Experimental results on the cross-over point in satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 22-28, 1993.

[6]

M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 7:201-215, 1960.

[7]

D. Du, J. Gu, and P. M. Pardalos, editors. Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications, volume 35. American Mathematical Society, 1997.

[8]

O. Dubois, P. Andre, Y. Boufkhad, and J. Carlier. SAT versus UNSAT. In D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors, Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.

[9]

J. W. Freeman. Improvements to Propositional Satisfiability Search Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, May 1995.

[10]

J. Gaschnig. Performance Measurement and Analysis of Certain Search Algorithms. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 1979.

[11]

A. Van Gelder and Y. K. Tsuji. Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing. In D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors, Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.

[12]

J. N. Hooker and V. Vinay. Branching rules for satisfiability. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 15:359-383, 1995.

[13]

R. G. Jeroslow and J. Wang. Solving propositional satisfiability problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1:167-187, 1990.

[14]

D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors. Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.

[15]

H. Kautz and B. Selman. Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1996.

[16]

T. Larrabee. Test pattern generation using boolean satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, 11(1):4-15, January 1992.

[17]

C. M. Li and Anbulagan. Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 1997.

[18]

J. P. Marques-Silva and K. A. Sakallah. GRASP-A new search algorithm for satisfiability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, November 1996.

[19]

D. Pretolani. Efficiency and stability of hypergraph sat algorithms. In D. S. Johnson and M. A. Trick, editors, Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. American Mathematical Society, 1993.

[20]

B. Selman and H. Kautz. Domain-independent extensions to GSAT: Solving large structured satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 290-295, 1993.

[21]

B. Selman, H. Levesque, and D. Mitchell. A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 440-446, 1992.

[22]

R. M. Stallman and G. J. Sussman. Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 9:135-196, October 1977.

[23]

R. Zabih and D. A. McAllester. A rearrangement search strategy for determining propositional satisfiability. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 155-160, 1988.

[24]

H. Zhang. SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 272-275, July 1997.

Cited By

Xu CLi WYang YChen JWang J(2019)Resolution and dominationProceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3367032.3367201(1191-1197)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3367032.3367201
Peitl TSlivovsky FSzeider S(2019)Long-Distance Q-Resolution with Dependency SchemesJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-018-9467-363:1(127-155)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10817-018-9467-3
Blinkhorn JBeyersdorff O(2018)Dynamic dependency awareness for QBFProceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3304652.3304739(5224-5228)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3304652.3304739
Show More Cited By

The Impact of Branching Heuristics in Propositional Satisfiability Algorithms
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Search methodologies
2. Mathematics of computing

Recommendations

Complexity and structural heuristics for propositional and quantified satisfiability
New updating criteria for conflict-based branching heuristics in DPLL algorithms for satisfiability

The paper is concerned with the computational evaluation and comparison of a new family of conflict-based branching heuristics for evolved DPLL Satisfiability solvers. Such a family of heuristics is based on the use of new scores updating criteria ...
A finite state intersection approach to propositional satisfiability

We use a finite state (FSA) construction approach to address the problem of propositional satisfiability (SAT). We present a very simple translation from formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF) to regular expressions and use regular expressions to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

EPIA '99: Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence

September 1999

384 pages

ISBN:354066548X

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 21 September 1999

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

34
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Xu CLi WYang YChen JWang J(2019)Resolution and dominationProceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3367032.3367201(1191-1197)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3367032.3367201
Peitl TSlivovsky FSzeider S(2019)Long-Distance Q-Resolution with Dependency SchemesJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-018-9467-363:1(127-155)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10817-018-9467-3
Blinkhorn JBeyersdorff O(2018)Dynamic dependency awareness for QBFProceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3304652.3304739(5224-5228)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3304652.3304739
Chen JHe FHuchard MKästner CFraser G(2018)Control flow-guided SMT solving for program verificationProceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/3238147.3238218(351-361)Online publication date: 3-Sep-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3238147.3238218
Giráldez-Cru JLevy J(2017)Locality in random SAT instancesProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171642.3171734(638-644)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3171642.3171734
Hu R(2017)Research of Branching Heuristic Strategy for Implied Literal in Shortest Clause for SAT ProblemProceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Deep Learning Technologies10.1145/3094243.3094250(46-50)Online publication date: 2-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3094243.3094250
Liang JGanesh VPoupart PCzarnecki K(2016)Exponential recency weighted average branching heuristic for SAT solversProceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3016100.3016385(3434-3440)Online publication date: 12-Feb-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3016100.3016385
Chockler HIvrii AMatsliah ARollini SSharygina NShin SMaldonado J(2013)Using cross-entropy for satisfiabilityProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/2480362.2480588(1196-1203)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2480362.2480588
Li AChen MJerraya ACarloni LChang NFummi F(2012)Efficient self-learning techniques for SAT-based test generationProceedings of the eighth IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference on Hardware/software codesign and system synthesis10.1145/2380445.2380480(197-206)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2380445.2380480
Katebi HSakallah KMarques-Silva J(2011)Empirical study of the anatomy of modern sat solversProceedings of the 14th international conference on Theory and application of satisfiability testing10.5555/2023474.2023510(343-356)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2023474.2023510
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents