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

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.

[1]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[2]  Jakob Nordström Narrow Proofs May Be Spacious: Separating Space and Width in Resolution , 2009, SIAM J. Comput..

[3]  Albert Atserias,et al.  A combinatorial characterization of resolution width , 2008, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[4]  Justyna Petke,et al.  Local Consistency and SAT-Solvers , 2010, CP.

[5]  Peter B. Andrews Resolution With Merging , 1968, JACM.

[6]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  A New Clause Learning Scheme for Efficient Unsatisfiability Proofs , 2008, AAAI.

[7]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis--Putnam--Logemann--Loveland procedure to DPLL(T) , 2006, JACM.

[8]  Lawrence Ryan Efficient algorithms for clause-learning SAT solvers , 2004 .

[9]  Henry A. Kautz,et al.  Towards Understanding and Harnessing the Potential of Clause Learning , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[10]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  RSat 2.0: SAT Solver Description , 2006 .

[11]  Matthew W. Moskewicz,et al.  Cha : Engineering an e cient SAT solver , 2001, DAC 2001.

[12]  Michael Alekhnovich,et al.  Satisfiability, Branch-Width and Tseitin tautologies , 2011, computational complexity.

[13]  Eugene Goldberg,et al.  BerkMin: A Fast and Robust Sat-Solver , 2002 .

[14]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  On the Power of Clause-Learning SAT Solvers with Restarts , 2009, CP.

[15]  Henry A. Kautz,et al.  Understanding the power of clause learning , 2003, IJCAI 2003.

[16]  Jakob Nordstr NARROW PROOFS MAY BE SPACIOUS: SEPARATING SPACE AND WIDTH IN RESOLUTION ∗ , 2009 .

[17]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  Constraint Satisfaction, Bounded Treewidth, and Finite-Variable Logics , 2002, CP.

[18]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[19]  Michael Alekhnovich,et al.  Resolution Is Not Automatizable Unless W[P] Is Tractable , 2008, SIAM J. Comput..

[20]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  GRASP—a new search algorithm for satisfiability , 1996, ICCAD 1996.

[21]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Lower Bounds for Width-Restricted Clause Learning on Small Width Formulas , 2010, SAT.

[22]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[23]  Roberto J. Bayardo,et al.  Using CSP Look-Back Techniques to Solve Real-World SAT Instances , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[24]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Clause Learning Can Effectively P-Simulate General Propositional Resolution , 2008, AAAI.

[25]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  Formal Languages]: Mathematical Logic--mechanical theorem proving , 2022 .