Guiding SAT Diagnosis with Tree Decompositions

A tree decomposition of a hypergraph is a construction that captures the graph’s topological structure. Every tree decomposition has an associated tree width, which can be viewed as a measure of how tree-like the original hypergraph is. Tree decomposition has proven to be a very useful theoretical vehicle for generating polynomial algorithms for subclasses of problems whose general solution is NP-complete. As a rule, this is done by designing the algorithms so that their runtime is bounded by some polynomial times a function of the tree width of a tree decomposition of the original problem. Problem instances that have bounded tree width can thus be solved by the resulting algorithms in polynomial time. A variety of methods are known for deciding satisfiability of Boolean formulas whose hypergraph representations have tree decompositions of small width. However, satisfiability methods based on tree decomposition has yet to make an large impact. In this paper, we report on our effort to learn whether the theoretical applicability of tree decomposition to SAT can be made to work in practice. We discuss how we generate tree decompositions, and how we make use of them to guide variable selection and conflict clause generation. We also present experimental results demonstrating that the method we propose can decrease the number of necessary decisions by one or more orders of magnitude.

[1]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth , 1993, STOC.

[2]  D. Rose Triangulated graphs and the elimination process , 1970 .

[3]  P. Schönemann On artificial intelligence , 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[4]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Confluently persistent deques via data structuaral bootstrapping , 1993, SODA '93.

[5]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  A Tourist Guide through Treewidth , 1993, Acta Cybern..

[6]  Hans L. Bodlaender A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth , 1993, STOC '93.

[7]  Eyal Amir,et al.  Solving Satisfiability using Decomposition and the Most Constrained Subproblem (Preliminary Report) , 2001, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[8]  Sharad Malik,et al.  The Quest for Efficient Boolean Satisfiability Solvers , 2002, CAV.

[9]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[10]  Adnan Darwiche Compiling Knowledge into Decomposable Negation Normal Form , 1999, IJCAI.

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

[12]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Faster SAT and smaller BDDs via common function structure , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[13]  Eyal Amir,et al.  Efficient Approximation for Triangulation of Minimum Treewidth , 2001, UAI.

[14]  Derek G. Corneil,et al.  Complexity of finding embeddings in a k -tree , 1987 .

[15]  John R. Gilbert,et al.  Approximating Treewidth, Pathwidth, Frontsize, and Shortest Elimination Tree , 1995, J. Algorithms.

[16]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Adding Structure to Unstructured Data , 1997, ICDT.

[17]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  A Structure-Based Variable Ordering Heuristic for SAT , 2003, IJCAI.

[18]  ArnborgStefan Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded, decomposabilitya survey , 1985 .

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

[20]  Kurt Keutzer,et al.  Why is ATPG easy? , 1999, DAC '99.

[21]  Stefan Arnborg,et al.  Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded decomposability — A survey , 1985, BIT.

[22]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Network-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems , 1988 .

[23]  Donald J. ROSE,et al.  On simple characterizations of k-trees , 1974, Discret. Math..

[24]  D. Rose,et al.  Algorithmic aspects of vertex elimination on directed graphs. , 1975 .

[25]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Partition-based decision heuristics for image computation using SAT and BDDs , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[26]  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).

[27]  Anand Rajaraman,et al.  Conjunctive query containment revisited , 1997, Theor. Comput. Sci..