Symmetric Explanation Learning: Effective Dynamic Symmetry Handling for SAT

The presence of symmetry in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem instances often poses challenges to solvers. Currently, the most effective approach to handle symmetry is by static symmetry breaking, which generates asymmetric constraints to add to the instance. An alternative way is to handle symmetry dynamically during solving. As modern SAT solvers can be viewed as propositional proof generators, adding a symmetry rule in a solver’s proof system would be a straightforward technique to handle symmetry dynamically. However, none of these proposed symmetrical learning techniques are competitive to static symmetry breaking. In this paper, we present symmetric explanation learning, a form of symmetrical learning based on learning symmetric images of explanation clauses for unit propagations performed during search. A key idea is that these symmetric clauses are only learned when they would restrict the current search state, i.e., when they are unit or conflicting. We further provide a theoretical discussion on symmetric explanation learning and a working implementation in a state-of-the-art SAT solver. We also present extensive experimental results indicating that symmetric explanation learning is the first symmetrical learning scheme competitive with static symmetry breaking.

[1]  Ian P. Gent,et al.  Symmetry Breaking in Constraint Programming , 2000, ECAI.

[2]  Holger Hermanns,et al.  Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[4]  Maurice Bruynooghe,et al.  Improved Static Symmetry Breaking for SAT , 2016, SAT.

[5]  Ashish Sabharwal SymChaff: exploiting symmetry in a structure-aware satisfiability solver , 2008, Constraints.

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

[7]  Lakhdar Sais,et al.  Tractability through symmetries in propositional calculus , 1994, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[8]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Symmetry and Satisfiability: An Update , 2010, SAT.

[9]  Tarek Nabhani,et al.  Dynamic symmetry breaking in the satisfiability problem , 2010 .

[10]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Solving difficult SAT instances in the presence of symmetry , 2002, Proceedings 2002 Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.02CH37324).

[11]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Symmetry-Breaking Predicates for Search Problems , 1996, KR.

[12]  Eliezer L. Lozinskii,et al.  The Good Old Davis-Putnam Procedure Helps Counting Models , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[13]  Christopher Mears,et al.  Symmetry Propagation: Improved Dynamic Symmetry Breaking in SAT , 2012, 2012 IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[14]  Armin Haken,et al.  The Intractability of Resolution , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Bart Demoen,et al.  Lightweight dynamic symmetry breaking , 2014, Constraints.

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

[17]  Balakrishnan Krishnamurthy Short proofs for tricky formulas , 2004, Acta Informatica.

[18]  Brendan D. McKay,et al.  Practical graph isomorphism, II , 2013, J. Symb. Comput..

[19]  Petteri Kaski,et al.  Engineering an Efficient Canonical Labeling Tool for Large and Sparse Graphs , 2007, ALENEX.

[20]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Symmetry Breaking Constraints: Recent Results , 2012, AAAI.

[21]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Dynamic symmetry-breaking for Boolean satisfiability , 2009, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[22]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Efficient symmetry breaking for Boolean satisfiability , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

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

[24]  J. P. Marques,et al.  GRASP : A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999 .

[25]  Marijn J. H. Heule,et al.  CNF Symmetry Breaking Options in Conflict Driven SAT Solving , 2005 .

[26]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers as resolution engines , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Niklas Een,et al.  MiniSat v1.13 - A SAT Solver with Conflict-Clause Minimization , 2005 .

[28]  Marijn J. H. Heule,et al.  Dynamic Symmetry Breaking by Simulating Zykov Contraction , 2009, SAT.

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

[30]  Richard Ostrowski,et al.  Enhancing Clause Learning by Symmetry in SAT Solvers , 2010, 2010 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.