An Effective Learnt Clause Minimization Approach for CDCL SAT Solvers

Learnt clauses in CDCL SAT solvers often contain redundant literals. This may have a negative impact on performance because redundant literals may deteriorate both the effectiveness of Boolean constraint propagation and the quality of subsequent learnt clauses. To overcome this drawback, we define a new inprocessing SAT approach which eliminates redundant literals from learnt clauses by applying Boolean constraint propagation. Learnt clause minimization is activated before the SAT solver triggers some selected restarts, and affects only some learnt clauses during the search process. Moreover, we conducted an empirical evaluation on instances coming from the hard combinatorial and application categories of recent SAT competitions. The results show that a remarkable number of additional instances are solved when the approach is incorporated into five of the best performing CDCL SAT solvers (Glucose, TC_Glucose, COMiniSatPS, MapleCOMSPS and MapleCOMSPS_LRB).

[1]  João P. Silva.  Algebraic Simplification Techniques for Propositional Satisfiability , 2000 .

[2]  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).

[3]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[4]  Jinchang Wang,et al.  Solving propositional satisfiability problems , 1990, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  Carlos Ansótegui,et al.  The Community Structure of SAT Formulas , 2012, SAT.

[6]  Ewald Speckenmeyer,et al.  Effectiveness of pre- and inprocessing for CDCL-based SAT solving , 2013, ArXiv.

[7]  Armin Biere,et al.  Inprocessing Rules , 2012, IJCAR.

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

[9]  Joao Marques-Silva.  Algebraic Simplification Techniques for Propositional Satisfiability , 2000, CP.

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

[11]  Armin Biere,et al.  Effective Preprocessing in SAT Through Variable and Clause Elimination , 2005, SAT.

[12]  Jesús Giráldez-Cru,et al.  A Modularity-Based Random SAT Instances Generator , 2015, IJCAI.

[13]  Gilles Audemard,et al.  Refining Restarts Strategies for SAT and UNSAT , 2012, CP.

[14]  Fabio Somenzi,et al.  On-the-Fly Clause Improvement , 2009, SAT.

[15]  Carlos Ansótegui,et al.  Using Community Structure to Detect Relevant Learnt Clauses , 2015, SAT.

[16]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  Effective Preprocessing with Hyper-Resolution and Equality Reduction , 2003, SAT.

[17]  Armin Biere.  Preprocessing and Inprocessing Techniques in SAT , 2011, Haifa Verification Conference.

[18]  Armin Biere,et al.  Minimizing Learned Clauses , 2009, SAT.

[19]  Lakhdar Sais,et al.  Vivifying Propositional Clausal Formulae , 2008, ECAI.

[20]  Gilles Audemard,et al.  Predicting Learnt Clauses Quality in Modern SAT Solvers , 2009, IJCAI.

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

[22]  Sebastian Fischmeister,et al.  Impact of Community Structure on SAT Solver Performance , 2014, SAT.

[23]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Learning Rate Based Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers , 2016, SAT.

[24]  Fabio Somenzi,et al.  Alembic: An Efficient Algorithm for CNF Preprocessing , 2007, 2007 44th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[25]  Armin Biere,et al.  Efficient CNF Simplification Based on Binary Implication Graphs , 2011, SAT.

[26]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Exponential Recency Weighted Average Branching Heuristic for SAT Solvers , 2016, AAAI.

[27]  Chanseok Oh.  Improving SAT Solvers by Exploiting Empirical Characteristics of CDCL , 2016 .