Random SAT Instances à la Carte

Many studies focus on the generation of hard SAT instances. The hardness is usually measured by the time it takes SAT solvers to solve the instances. In this preliminary study, we focus on the generation of instances that have computational properties that are more similar to real-world instances. In particular, instances with the same degree of difficulty, measured in terms of the tree-like resolution space complexity. It is known that industrial instances, even with a great number of variables, can be solved by a clever solver in a reasonable amount of time. One of the reasons may be their relatively small space complexity, compared with randomly generated instances. We provide two generation methods of k-SAT instances, called geometrical and the geo-regular, as generalizations of the uniform and regular k-CNF generators. Both are based on the use of a geometric probability distribution to select variables. We study the phase transition phenomena and the hardness of the generated instances as a function of the number of variables and the base of the geometric distribution. We prove that, with these two parameters we can adjust the difficulty of the problems in the phase transition point. We conjecture that this will allow us to generate random instances more similar to industrial instances, of interest for testing purposes.

[1]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  The Efficiency of Resolution and Davis--Putnam Procedures , 2002, SIAM J. Comput..

[2]  Bart Selman,et al.  Backdoors To Typical Case Complexity , 2003, IJCAI.

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

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

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

[6]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple , 2001, JACM.

[7]  Bart Selman,et al.  Satisfiability testing: recent developments and challenge problems , 2000, Proceedings Fifteenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB36332).

[8]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Constraint Processing , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2008) , 2022 .

[10]  Endre Szemerédi,et al.  Many hard examples for resolution , 1988, JACM.

[11]  Chu Min Li,et al.  Look-Ahead Versus Look-Back for Satisfiability Problems , 1997, CP.

[12]  Bart Selman,et al.  Ten Challenges Redux: Recent Progress in Propositional Reasoning and Search , 2003, CP.

[13]  Bart Selman,et al.  Regular Random k-SAT: Properties of Balanced Formulas , 2005, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[14]  Bart Selman,et al.  Unifying SAT-based and Graph-based Planning , 1999, IJCAI.

[15]  Bart Selman,et al.  Ten Challenges in Propositional Reasoning and Search , 1997, IJCAI.