Skip to main content

Clause-Learning Algorithms with Many Restarts and Bounded-Width Resolution

  • Conference paper
Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2009 (SAT 2009)

Abstract

We offer a new understanding of some aspects of practical SAT-solvers that are based on DPLL with unit-clause propagation, clause-learning, and restarts. On the theoretical side, we do so by analyzing a concrete algorithm which we claim is faithful to what practical solvers do. In particular, before making any new decision or restart, the solver repeatedly applies the unit-resolution rule until saturation, and leaves no component to the mercy of non-determinism except for some internal randomness. We prove the perhaps surprising fact that, although the solver is not explicitely designed for it, it ends up behaving as width-k resolution after no more than n 2k + 1 conflicts and restarts, where n is the number of variables. In other words, width-k resolution can be thought as n 2k + 1 restarts of the unit-resolution rule with learning. On the experimental side, we give evidence for the claim that this theoretical result describes real world solvers. We do so by running some of the most prominent solvers on some CNF formulas that we designed to have resolution refutations of width k. It turns out that the upper bound of the theoretical result holds for these solvers and that the true performance appears to be not very far from it.

Partially supported by project CICYT TIN2007-68005-C04-03.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Satisfiability, branch-width and tseitin tautologies. In: FOCS, pp. 593–603. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atserias, A., Dalmau, V.: A combinatorial characterization of resolution width. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74(3), 323–334 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Beame, P., Kautz, H.A., Sabharwal, A.: Understanding the power of clause learning. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 1194–1201. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beame, P., Kautz, H.A., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 22, 319–351 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow - resolution made simple. In: STOC, pp. 517–526 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dalmau, V., Kolaitis, P.G., Vardi, M.Y.: Constraint satisfaction, bounded treewidth, and finite-variable logics. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 310–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: A fast and robust sat-solver. In: Design, Automation and Test in Europe, DATE 2002 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hertel, P., Bacchus, F., Pitassi, T., Van Gelder, A.: Clause learning can effectively p-simulate general propositional resolution. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 283–290. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bayardo Jr., R.J., Schrag, R.C.: Using csp look-back techniques to solve real-world sat instances. In: Proceedings of the Fourtheenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1997), pp. 203–208 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (DAC 2001) (June 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: Rsat 2.0: Sat solver description. Technical Report D–153, Automated Reasoning Group, Computer Science Department, UCLA (2007)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marques Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: Grasp - a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, November 1996, pp. 220–227 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 34(1), 209–219 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Atserias, A., Fichte, J.K., Thurley, M. (2009). Clause-Learning Algorithms with Many Restarts and Bounded-Width Resolution. In: Kullmann, O. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2009. SAT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5584. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02776-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02777-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics