Backbone Fragility and the Local Search Cost Peak

The local search algorithm WSAT is one of the most successful algorithms for solving the satisfiability (SAT) problem. It is notably effective at solving hard Random 3-SAT instances near the so-called 'satisfiability threshold', but still shows a peak in search cost near the threshold and large variations in cost over different instances. We make a number of significant contributions to the analysis of WSAT on high-cost random instances, using the recently-introduced concept of the backbone of a SAT instance. The backbone is the set of literals which are entailed by an instance. We find that the number of solutions predicts the cost well for small-backbone instances but is much less relevant for the large-backbone instances which appear near the threshold and dominate in the overconstrained region. We show a very strong correlation between search cost and the Hamming distance to the nearest solution early in WSAT's search. This pattern leads us to introduce a measure of the backbone fragility of an instance, which indicates how persistent the backbone is as clauses are removed. We propose that high-cost random instances for local search are those with very large backbones which are also backbone-fragile. We suggest that the decay in cost beyond the satisfiability threshold is due to increasing backbone robustness (the opposite of backbone fragility). Our hypothesis makes three correct predictions. First, that the backbone robustness of an instance is negatively correlated with the local search cost when other factors are controlled for. Second, that backbone-minimal instances (which are 3-SAT instances altered so as to be more backbone-fragile) are unusually hard for WSAT. Third, that the clauses most often unsatisfied during search are those whose deletion has the most effect on the backbone. In understanding the pathologies of local search methods, we hope to contribute to the development of new and better techniques.

[1]  S.J.J. Smith,et al.  Empirical Methods for Artificial Intelligence , 1995 .

[2]  John Franco,et al.  Probabilistic analysis of the Davis Putnam procedure for solving the satisfiability problem , 1983, Discret. Appl. Math..

[3]  Andrew J. Parkes,et al.  Clustering at the Phase Transition , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[4]  S. Kirkpatrick,et al.  2+p-SAT: relation of typical-case complexity to the nature of the phase transition , 1999 .

[5]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Local Search and the Number of Solutions , 1996, CP.

[6]  David G. Mitchell,et al.  Finding hard instances of the satisfiability problem: A survey , 1996, Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications.

[7]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  Characterizing the Run-time Behavior of Stochastic Local Search , 1998 .

[8]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  Stochastic local search - methods, models, applications , 1998, DISKI.

[9]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On the Greedy Algorithm for Satisfiability , 1992, Information Processing Letters.

[10]  Ian P. Gent,et al.  On the Completeness of WalkSAT for 2-SAT ? , 1999 .

[11]  Ian P. Gent On the Stupid Algorithm for Satissability , 1998 .

[12]  Yumi K. Tsuji,et al.  EVIDENCE FOR A SATISFIABILITY THRESHOLD FOR RANDOM 3CNF FORMULAS , 1992 .

[13]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  On the Run-time Behaviour of Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for SAT , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[14]  Tad Hogg,et al.  The Hardest Constraint Problems: A Double Phase Transition , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Jeremy Frank,et al.  When Gravity Fails: Local Search Topology , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[16]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Implicates and Prime Implicates in Random 3-SAT , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Toby Walsh The Constrainedness Knife-Edge , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[18]  Toby Walsh,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Search in GSAT , 1993, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[19]  Bart Selman,et al.  Evidence for Invariants in Local Search , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[20]  Holger H. Hoos SAT-Encodings, Search Space Structure, and Local Search Performance , 1999, IJCAI.

[21]  Bart Selman,et al.  Noise Strategies for Improving Local Search , 1994, AAAI.

[22]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Hard and Easy Distributions of SAT Problems , 1992, AAAI.

[23]  C.H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On selecting a satisfying truth assignment , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[24]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The Satisfiability Constraint Gap , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Rémi Monasson,et al.  Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’ , 1999, Nature.

[26]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Experimental Results on the Crossover Point in Random 3-SAT , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Yuichi Asahiro,et al.  Random generation of test instances with controlled attributes , 1993, Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability.

[28]  Peter C. Cheeseman,et al.  Where the Really Hard Problems Are , 1991, IJCAI.

[29]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The complexity of theorem-proving procedures , 1971, STOC.

[30]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Why Adding More Constraints Makes a Problem Easier for Hill-climbing Algorithms: Analyzing Landscapes of CSPs , 1997, CP.

[31]  Rémi Monasson,et al.  2+p-SAT: Relation of typical-case complexity to the nature of the phase transition , 1999, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[32]  Andrew J. Parkes,et al.  Tuning Local Search for Satisfiability Testing , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[33]  Ian P. Gent,et al.  Well out of reach: Why hard problems are hard , 1999 .

[34]  Roberto J. Bayardo,et al.  Using CSP Look-Back Techniques to Solve Exceptionally Hard SAT Instances , 1996, CP.

[35]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The Constrainedness of Search , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.