Abstract
DPLL based clause learning algorithms for satisfiability testing are known to work very well in practice. However, like most branch-and-bound techniques, their performance depends heavily on the variable order used in making branching decisions. We propose a novel way of exploiting the underlying problem structure to guide clause learning algorithms toward faster solutions. The key idea is to use a higher level problem description, such as a graph or a PDDL specification, to generate a good branching sequence as an aid to SAT solvers. The sequence captures hierarchical structure that is lost in the CNF translation. We show that this leads to exponential speedups on grid and randomized pebbling problems. The ideas we use originate from the analysis of problem structure recently used in [1] to study clause learning from a theoretical perspective.
Research supported by NSF Grant ITR-0219468
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Understanding the power of clause learning. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico (2003) (to appear)
Velev, M., Bryant, R.: Effective use of boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and vliw microprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, pp. 226–231 (2001)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In: Proceedings of the 36th Design Automation Conference, New Orleans, LA, pp. 317–320 (1999)
Zhang, H., Hsiang, J.: Solving open quasigroup problems by propositional reasoning. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Symp., Hsinchu, Taiwan (1994)
Konuk, H., Larrabee, T.: Explorations of sequential ATPG using boolean satisfiability. In: 11th VLSI Test Symposium, pp. 85–90 (1993)
Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., McAloon, K., Tretkoff, C.: Randomization in backtrack search: Exploiting heavy-tailed profiles for solving hard scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Pittsburgh, PA (1998)
Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Communications of the ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)
Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)
Li, C.M.: Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: IJCAI (1), pp. 366–371 (1997)
Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Kautz, H.: Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In: Proceedings, AAAI 1998: 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, pp. 431–437 (1998)
Bayardo Jr., R.J., Schrag, R.C.: Using CST look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: Proceedings, AAAI 1997: 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 203–208 (1997)
Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP – a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Design, San Jose, CA, pp. 220–227. ACM/IEEE (1996)
Zhang, H.: SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In: McCune, W. (ed.) CADE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1249, pp. 272–275. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 530–535. ACM/IEEE (2001)
Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Design, San Jose, CA, pp. 279–285, ACM/IEEE (2001)
de Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosing multiple faults. Artificial Intelligence 32, 97–130 (1987)
Stallman, R., Sussman, G.J.: Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artificial Intelligence 9, 135–196 (1977)
Genesereth, R.: The use of design descriptions in automated diagnosis. Artificial Intelligence 24, 411–436 (1984)
Davis, R.: Diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behavior. Artificial Intelligence 24, 347–410 (1984)
Li, C.M.: Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 366–371 (1997)
Mézard, M., Zecchina, R.: Random k-satisfiability problem: From an analytic solution to an efficient algorithm. Physical Review E 66, 056126 (2002)
Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., McDermott, D., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D., Wilkins, D.: PDDL – the planning domain definition language. Technical report, Yale University, New Haven, CT (1998)
Johnson, D.S., Trick, M.A. (eds.): Cliques, Coloring and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 26. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1996)
Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., Tacchella, A.: Dependent and independent variables in propositional satisfiability. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 296–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Ostrowski, R., Grégoire, E., Mazure, B., Sais, L.: Recovering and exploiting structural knowledge from cnf formulas. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 185–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Aloul, F.A., Ramani, A., Markov, I.L., Sakallah, K.A.: Solving difficult SAT instances in presence of symmetry. In: Proceedings of the 39th Design Automation Conference, New Orleans, LA, pp. 731–736 (2002)
Brafman, R.I.: A simplifier for propositional formulas with many binary clauses. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, pp. 515–522 (2001)
Amir, E., McIlraith, S.A.: Partition-based logical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Breckenridge, CO, pp. 389–400 (2000)
Shtrichman, O.: Tuning SAT checkers for bounded model checking. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Chicago, IL, pp. 480–494 (2000)
Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In: Proceedings, AAAI 1996: 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Portland, OR, pp. 1194–1201 (1996)
Bonet, M.L., Esteban, J.L., Galesi, N., Johansen, J.: On the relative complexity of resolution refinements and cutting planes proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing 30, 1462–1484 (2000)
Bonet, M.L., Galesi, N.: A study of proof search algorithms for resolution and polynomial calculus. In: Proceedings 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, New York, NY, pp. 422–432. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)
Ben-Sasson, E., Impagliazzo, R., Wigderson, A.: Near-optimal separation of treelike and general resolution. Technical Report TR00-005, Electronic Colloquium in Computation Complexity (2000), http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/eccc/
Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., Pitassi, T., Segerlind, N.: Memoization and DPLL: Formula caching proof systems. In: Proceedings 18th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, Aarhus, Denmark (2003) (to appear)
Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria, pp. 359–363 (1992)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 193–207 (1999)
Aziz, A., Tasiran, S., Brayton, R.K.: BDD variable orderings for interacting finite state machines. In: Proceedings of the 31th Design Automation Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 283–288 (1994)
Harlow, J.E., Brglez, F.: Design of experiments in BDD variable ordering: Lessons learned. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Design, San Jose, CA, pp. 646–652 (1998)
Hulgaard, H., Williams, P.F., Andersen, H.R.: Equivalence checking of combinational circuits using boolean expression diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits 18, 903–917 (1999)
Reda, S., Drechsler, R., Orailoglu, A.: On the relation between SAT and BDDs for equivalence checking. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design, San Jose, CA, pp. 394–399 (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sabharwal, A., Beame, P., Kautz, H. (2004). Using Problem Structure for Efficient Clause Learning. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. SAT 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2919. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-20851-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24605-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive