Computer Science ›› 2020, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (7): 42-46.doi: 10.11896/jsjkx.190700191

• Computer Science Theory • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Reward Mechanism Based Branching Strategy for SAT Solver

SHEN Xue, CHEN Shu-wei, AI Sen-yang   

  1. School of Mathematics,Southwest Jiaotong University,Chengdu 610031,China
    National-Local Joint Engineering Laboratory of System Credibility Automatic Verification,Chengdu 610031,China
  • Received:2019-07-26 Online:2020-07-15 Published:2020-07-16
  • About author:SHEN Xue,born in 1994,postgraduate.Her main research interests include intelligent information processing and automated reasoning.
    CHEN Shu-wei,born in 1977,Ph.D,associate professor.His main research interests include logic based automated reasoning and decision analysis.
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61673320) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2682018ZT10,2682018CX59)

Abstract: Branching decision is one of the most critical parts of CDCL solver,and an excellent branching strategy can reduce the number of branching decisions and improve the SAT solver’s efficiency.Most of the state-of-art branching strategies have incorporated the conflict analysis process.But the branching strategies have different reward methods on variables participating in conflict analysis,so the selected branching variables are different.In this paper,considering the important fact that decision variables are always selected in the unassigned variable set,a new branching strategy based on the EVSIDS (Exponential Variable State Independent Decaying Sum) branching strategy is proposed,which is called the branching strategy based on the reward mechanism (referred to as the RACT branching strategy).The RACT branching strategy is to reward the variables that are de-assigned in the conflict analysis again to increase the probability that the variables that are frequently involved in the conflict analysis in the unassigned variables are selected as branch variables.Finally,the proposed branching strategy is embedded into the Glucose4.1 solver to form a new solver Glucose4.1+RACT,and the effectiveness of the RACT branching strategy is tested by using 350 instances of the 2017 SAT competition as experimental data sets.The experimental comparison shows that the solver Glucose4.1+RACT can solve more instances than the original solver,especially with an increase of 13.5% in the number of satisfied instances,and the total time spent on solving 350 competition examples is also 3.9% lower than that of Glucose 4.1.The above experimental data shows that the proposed branching strategy can effectively reduce the number of branch decisions in the search tree and give the correct search space,thus improving the solving ability of the SAT solver.

Key words: Backtrack search, Branching strategy, Complete algorithms, Conflict driven clause learning, Satisfiability problem

CLC Number: 

  • TP181
[1]COOK S.The Complexity of Theorem Proving Procedures[C]//Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing.New York,1971:151-158.
[2]MARQUES-SILVA J.Practical Applications of Boolean Satisfi-ability[C]//9th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems (WODES 2008).IEEE,2008:74-80.
[3]XU L,YU J.Improved Bounded Model Checking on Verification of Valid ACTL Properties [J].Computer Science,2013,40(6):99-102.
[4]DAVIS M,LOGEMANN G,LOVELAND D.A Machine Pro-gram for Theorem Proving [J].Communications of the ACM,1962,5(5):394-397.
[5]MARQUES-SILVA J,LYNCE I,MALIK S.Conflict DrivenClause Learning SAT Solvers[M]//Handbook of Satisfiability.Amsterdam:IOS Press,2009:127-149.
[6]MARQUES-SILVA J.The Impact of Branching Heuristics onPropositional Satisfiability Algorithms[C]//Portuguese Confe-rence on Artificial Intelligence.Heidelberg:Springer,1999:62-74.
[7]MARQUES-SILVA J,SAKALLAH K.GRASP:A New Search Algorithm for Satisfiability[M]//The Best of ICCAD.New York:Springer,2003:73-89.
[8]MALIK S,ZHAO Y,MADIGAN C.Chaff:Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver[C]//Proceedings of the 38th Annual Design Automation Conference.2001:530-535.
[9]BIERE A.Adaptive Restart Strategies for Conflict Driven SAT Solvers[C]//Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing-SAT 2008.Heidelberg:Springer,2008:28-33.
[10]EEN N,SORENSSON N.An Extensible SAT-solver[C]//Theo-ry and Applications of Satisfiability Testing-SAT 2003.Berlin:Springer,2003:502-518.
[11]BIERE A,FROHLICH A.Evaluating CDCL Variable ScoringSchemes[C]//Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing-SAT 2015.Switzerland:Springer,2015:405-422.
[12]王国俊.数理逻辑引论与归结原理[M].北京:科学出版社,2003.
[13]张建.逻辑公式的可满足性判断——方法、工具及应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2000:3-28.
[14]BIERE A.Lingeling,Plingrling and Treengeling Entering theSAT Competition 2013[C]//Proceedings of SAT Competition.2013:51-52.
[15]AUDEMARD G,SIMON L.On the Glucose SAT Solver [J].International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools,2018,27(1):18400.
[16]LIANG J,GANESH V,POUPAR P,et al.Exponential Recency Weighted Average Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers[C]//Proceedings of the 13th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.AAAI Press,2016:3434-3440.
[17]LIANG J,GANESH V,POUPAR P,et al.Learning Rate Based Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers[C]//Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing-SAT 2016.Switzerland:Springer,2016:123-140.
[18]LIANG J,GANESH V,POUPAR P,et al.An Empirical Study of Branching Heuristics through the Lens of Global Learning Rate[C]//Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing.Melbourne,2017:119-135.
[19]CHEN Q S,XU Y X,HE X.Heuristic Complete Algorithm for SAT Problem by Using Logical Deduction [J].Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University,2017,52(6):1224-1232.
[20]XIAO F,LI C,LUO M,et al.A Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers Based on Complete Implication Graphs [J].Science China Information Sciences,2019,62(7):72103.
[1] WANG Yi-jie, XU Yang, WU Guan-feng. Branching Heuristic Strategy Based on Learnt Clauses Deletion Strategy for SAT Solver [J]. Computer Science, 2021, 48(11): 294-299.
[2] LIU Jiang, ZHOU Hong-hao. New Algebraic Logic Reduction Method for Boolean Formula [J]. Computer Science, 2020, 47(5): 32-37.
[3] CHEN Qing-shan, XU Yang, WU Guan-feng and HE Xing-xing. Path Identification Based Delaying Restart Algorithm for CDCL SAT Solver [J]. Computer Science, 2017, 44(11): 279-283.
[4] GUO Ying, ZHANG Chang-sheng and ZHANG Bin. Research Advance of SAT Solving Algorithm [J]. Computer Science, 2016, 43(3): 8-17.
[5] WANG Xiao-feng, LI Qiang and DING Hong-sheng. Convergence of Warning Propagation Algorithm for Regular Structure Instances [J]. Computer Science, 2015, 42(1): 279-284.
[6] LI Shen,CHANG Liang,MENG Yu and LI Feng-ying. Branching Temporal Description Logic ALC-CTL and its Satisfiability Decision [J]. Computer Science, 2014, 41(3): 205-211.
[7] CHANG Liang , WANG Juan,GU Tian-long,DONG Rong-sheng. Tableau Decision Algorithm for the Temporal Description Logic ALC-LTL [J]. Computer Science, 2011, 38(8): 150-154.
[8] GU Wen-xiang,HUANG Ping,ZHU Lei,YIN Ming-hao. Research of Phase Transition in Artificial Intelligence [J]. Computer Science, 2011, 38(5): 1-7.
[9] GU Wen-xiang,LI Shu-xia,YIN Ming-hao. Research and Development in Backdoor Set [J]. Computer Science, 2010, 37(3): 11-16.
[10] . [J]. Computer Science, 2008, 35(5): 220-222.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!