Guiding SAT Solving by Formula Partitioning

International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2017, Pages

  Mann, Zoltán Ádám ^a   Papp, Pál András ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Boolean satisfiability; divide and conquer; formula partitioning; hypergraph partitioning; SAT; VSIDS

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; FORMAL LOGIC;

BOOLEAN SATISFIABILITY; DIVIDE AND CONQUER; FORMULA PARTITIONING; HYPERGRAPH PARTITIONING; VSIDS;

BOOLEAN ALGEBRA;

EID: 85028350608     PISSN: 02182130     EISSN: 17936349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0218213017500117     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Z. A. Mann, Typical-case complexity and the SAT competitions, in Proc. of the 5th Pragmatics of SAT Workshop (POS-14), EasyChair Proceedings in Computing, Vol. 27 (2014), pp. 72-87.
2. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd edn. (MIT Press, 2009).
3. T. J. Park and A. Van Gelder, Partitioning methods for satisfiability testing on large formulas, in Automated Deduction-Cade-13 (Springer, 1996), pp. 748-762.
4. V. Durairaj and P. Kalla, Exploiting hypergraph partitioning for efficient Boolean satisfiability, in Proc. of the 9th IEEE Int. High-Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (IEEE, 2004), pp. 141-146.
5. E. Amir and S. McIlraith, Partition-based logical reasoning for first-order and propositional theories, Artificial Intelligence 162(1) (2005) 49-88.
6. W. Li and P. Van Beek, Guiding real-world SAT solving with dynamic hypergraph separator decomposition, in 16th IEEE Int. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2004) (IEEE, 2004), pp. 542-548.
7. J. Huang and A. Darwiche, A structure-based variable ordering heuristic for SAT, in Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'03) (2003), pp. 1167-1172.
8. D. Singer and A. Monnet, JaCk-SAT: A new parallel scheme to solve the satisfiability problem (SAT) based on join-and-check, in Parallel Processing and Applied Mathe-matics-Revised Selected Papers of PPAM 2007 (Springer, 2008), pp. 249-258.
9. M. Heule and O. Kullmann, Decomposing clause-sets: Integrating DLL algorithms, tree decompositions and hypergraph cuts for variable-and clause-based graph representations of CNFs, Tech. Rep., University of Wales, Swansea (2006), CSR 2-2006.
10. Z. A. Mann and P. A. Papp, Formula partitioning revisited, in Proc. of the 5th Prag-matics of SAT Workshop (POS-14), EasyChair Proceedings in Computing, Vol. 27 (2014), pp. 41-56.
11. A. Biere and C. Sinz, Decomposing SAT problems into connected components, Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2 (2006) 201-208.
12. A. Monnet and R. Villemaire, Scalable formula decomposition for propositional satisfiability, in Proc. of the Third C∗ Conf. on Computer Science and Software Engineering (ACM, 2010), pp. 43-52.
13. J. Torres-Jimenez, L. Vega-Garcia, C. A. Coutino-Gomez and F. J. Cartujano-Escobar, SSTP: An approach to solve SAT instances through partition, in 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on Information Science, Communications and Applications (ISA 2004) (2004), pp. 484-403.
14. P. Bjesse, J. Kukula, R. Damiano, T. Stanion and Y. Zhu, Guiding SAT diagnosis with tree decompositions, in Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing-Selected Revised Papers of SAT 2003 (Springer, 2004), pp. 315-329.
15. M. Böhm and E. Speckenmeyer, A fast parallel SAT-solver-Efficient workload balancing, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 17(2) (1996) 381-400.
16. R. Martins, V. Manquinho and I. Lynce, An overview of parallel SAT solving, Con-straints 17(3) (2012) 304-347.
17. M. J. Heule, O. Kullmann, S. Wieringa and A. Biere, Cube and conquer: Guiding CDCL SAT solvers by lookaheads, in Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing (Springer, 2011), pp. 50-65.
18. A. Clauset, M. E. J. Newman and C. Moore, Finding community structure in very large networks, Physical Review E 70(6) (2004) 066111.
19. C. Ansótegui and J. Levy, On the modularity of industrial SAT instances, in 14th Int. Conf. of the Catalan Association for Artificial Intelligence (2011), pp. 11-20.
20. C. Ansótegui, J. Giráldez-Cru and J. Levy, The community structure of SAT formulas, in Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2012) (2012), pp. 410-423.
21. Z. Newsham, V. Ganesh, S. Fischmeister, G. Audemard and L. Simon, Impact of community structure on SAT solver performance, in Int. Conf. on Theory and Appli-cations of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2014) (2014), pp. 252-268.
22. G. Katsirelos and L. Simon, Eigenvector centrality in industrial SAT instances, in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (2012), pp. 348-356.
23. R. Huang, Y. Chen and W. Zhang, SAS+ planning as satisfiability, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 43(1) (2012) 293-328.
24. R. J. Bayardo, Jr. and J. D. Pehoushek, Counting models using connected components, in Proc. of the 17th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00) (2000), pp. 157-162.
25. M. Fürer and S. P. Kasiviswanathan, Exact MAX 2-SAT: Easier and faster, in SOF-SEM 2007: Theory and Practice of Computer Science-Proc. of the 33rd Conf. on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science (Springer, 2007), pp. 272-283.
26. G. Audemard and L. Simon, Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers, in 21st Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'09) (2009), pp. 399-404.
27. G. Audemard and L. Simon, Refining restarts strategies for SAT and UNSAT, in Proc. of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2012) (Springer, 2012), pp. 118-126.
28. N. Eén and N. Sörensson, An extensible SAT-solver, in Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing-Selected Revised Papers of SAT 2003 (Springer, 2004), pp. 502-518.
29. C. P. Gomes, H. Kautz, A. Sabharwal and B. Selman, Satisfiability solvers, in Hand-book of Knowledge Representation, eds. F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz and B. Porter (Elsevier, 2008) pp. 89-134.
30. R. G. Jeroslow and J. Wang, Solving propositional satisfiability problems, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 1 (1990) 167-187.
31. J. Gu, P. W. Purdom, J. Franco and B. W. Wah, Algorithms for the satisfiability (SAT) problem: A survey, in Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization, eds. D.-Z. Du and P. M. Pardalos (Springer, 1999) pp. 379-572.
32. M. W. Moskewicz, C. F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in Proc. of the 38th Annual Design Automation Conference (ACM, 2001), pp. 530-535.
33. A. Balint, A. Belov, D. Diepold, S. Gerber, M. Järvisalo and C. Sinz (Eds.), Proc. of SAT Challenge 2012: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions B-2012-2, Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B (University of Helsinki, 2012).
34. A. Balint, A. Belov, M. J. Heule and M. Järvisalo (Eds.), Proc. of SAT Competi-tion 2013: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions B-2013-1, Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B (University of Helsinki, 2013).
35. A. Belov, D. Diepold, M. J. Heule and M. Järvisalo (Eds.), Proc. of SAT Competi-tion 2014: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions B-2014-2, Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B (University of Helsinki, 2014).
36. T. Balyo, M. Iser and C. Sinz, SAT Race 2015, available at: http://baldur.iti.kit.edu/sat-race-2015/sr15.pdf.
37. A. E. Caldwell, A. B. Kahng and I. L. Markov, Design and implementation of the Fiduccia-Mattheyses heuristic for VLSI netlist partitioning, in Algorithm Engineering and Experimentation-Selected Papers of ALENEX'99 (Springer, 1999), pp. 182-198.
38. G. Karypis, R. Aggarwal, V. Kumar and S. Shekhar, Multilevel hypergraph partitioning: Applications in VLSI domain, IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems 7(1) (1999) 69-79.
39. Z. A. Mann, A. Orbán and V. Farkas, Evaluating the Kernighan-Lin heuristic for hardware/software partitioning, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science 17(2) (2007) 249-267.
40. Z. A. Mann, Optimization in Computer Engineering-Theory and Applications (Scientific Research Publishing, Inc. USA, 2011).
41. B. W. Kernighan and S. Lin, An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs, Bell System Technical Journal 49(2) (1970) 291-307.
42. C. M. Fiduccia and R. M. Mattheyses, A linear-time heuristic for improving network partitions, in Proc. of the 19th Design Automation Conference (IEEE, 1982), pp. 175-181.
43. A. Dasdan and C. Aykanat, Two novel multiway circuit partitioning algorithms using relaxed locking, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 16(2) (1997) 169-178.
44. A. G. Hoffmann, The dynamic locking heuristic-A new graph partitioning algorithm, in Proc. of the IEEE Int. Symp. on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS'94), Vol. 1, (IEEE, 1994), pp. 173-176.
45. G. Karypis and V. Kumar, Multilevel k-way hypergraph partitioning, VLSI Design 11(3) (2000) 285-300.
46. L. Xu, F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos and K. Leyton-Brown, SATzilla: Portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (2008) 565-606.
47. C. P. Gomes and B. Selman, Algorithm portfolios, Artificial Intelligence 126(1) (2001) 43-62.
48. O. Shacham and E. Zarpas, Tuning the VSIDS decision heuristic for bounded model checking, in Proc. of the 4th Int. Workshop on Microprocessor Test and Verification: Common Challenges and Solutions (IEEE, 2003), pp. 75-79.
49. P. Kilby, J. Slaney, S. Thiebaux and T. Walsh, Backbones and backdoors in satisfiability, in Proc. of the 20th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'05) (2005), pp. 1368-1373.
50. T. Schlichter, M. Lukasiewycz, C. Haubelt and J. Teich, Improving system level design space exploration by incorporating SAT-solvers into multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, in IEEE Computer Society Annual Symp. on Emerging VLSI Technologies and Architectures (2006), pp. 309-316.
51. P. Bjesse, T. Leonard and A. Mokkedem, Finding bugs in an Alpha microprocessor using satisfiability solvers, in Proc. of the 13th Int. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2001) (2001), pp. 454-464.