Using Algorithm Configuration Tools to Generate Hard SAT Benchmarks

Algorithm configuration tools have been successfully used to speed up local search satisfiability (SAT) solvers and other search algorithms by orders of magnitude. In this paper, we show that such tools are also very useful for generating hard SAT formulas with a planted solution, which is useful for benchmarking SAT solving algorithms and also has cryptographic applications. Our experiments with state-of-the-art local search SAT solvers show that by using this approach we can randomly generate satisfiable formulas that are considerably harder than uniform random formulas of the same size from the phase-transition region or formulas generated by state-of-the-art approaches. Additionally, we show how to generate small satisfiable formulas that are hard to solve by CDCL solvers.

[1]  Oliver Kullmann The SAT 2005 Solver Competition on Random Instances , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[2]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems , 1992, AAAI.

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

[4]  Bart Selman,et al.  Local search strategies for satisfiability testing , 1993, Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability.

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

[6]  M. Helmert,et al.  FD-Autotune: Domain-Specific Configuration using Fast Downward , 2011 .

[7]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  Generating Hard Satisfiable Formulas by Hiding Solutions Deceptively , 2005, AAAI.

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

[9]  Uwe Schöning,et al.  Choosing Probability Distributions for Stochastic Local Search and the Role of Make versus Break , 2012, SAT.

[10]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration , 2011, LION.

[11]  Lukás Chrpa,et al.  On the effective configuration of planning domain models , 2015 .

[12]  Armin Biere Lingeling, Plingeling and Treengeling Entering the SAT Competition 2013 , 2013 .

[13]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The SAT Phase Transition , 1994, ECAI.

[14]  Alan J. Hu,et al.  Boosting Verification by Automatic Tuning of Decision Procedures , 2007 .

[15]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Computational complexity , 1993 .

[16]  Riccardo Zecchina,et al.  Hiding solutions in random satisfiability problems: A statistical mechanics approach , 2001, Physical review letters.

[17]  Alfonso Gerevini,et al.  Automatic Generation of Efficient Domain-Optimized Planners from Generic Parametrized Planners , 2013, SOCS.

[18]  Ran Liu,et al.  Hiding multiple solutions in a hard 3-SAT formula , 2015, Data Knowl. Eng..

[19]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  Hiding Satisfying Assignments: Two Are Better than One , 2004, AAAI.