On the Structure of Industrial SAT Instances

During this decade, it has been observed that many realworld graphs, like the web and some social and metabolic networks, have a scale-free structure. These graphs are characterized by a big variability in the arity of nodes, that seems to follow a power-law distribution. This came as a big surprise to researchers steeped in the tradition of classical random networks. SAT instances can also be seen as (bi-partite) graphs. In this paper we study many families of industrial SAT instances used in SAT competitions, and show that most of them also present this scale-free structure. On the contrary, random SAT instances, viewed as graphs, are closer to the classical random graph model, where arity of nodes follows a Poisson distribution with small variability. This would explain their distinct nature. We also analyze what happens when we instantiate a fraction of the variables, at random or using some heuristics, and how the scale-free structure is modified by these instantiations. Finally, we study how the structure is modified during the execution of a SAT solver, concluding that the scale-free structure is preserved.

[1]  Massimo Marchiori,et al.  Error and attacktolerance of complex network s , 2004 .

[2]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

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

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

[5]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[6]  Mark Wallace,et al.  Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2004 , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  Towards Industrial-Like Random SAT Instances , 2009, IJCAI.

[8]  Walter Willinger,et al.  Towards a Theory of Scale-Free Graphs: Definition, Properties, and Implications , 2005, Internet Math..

[9]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  SATzilla: Portfolio-based Algorithm Selection for SAT , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[10]  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).

[11]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Internet: Diameter of the World-Wide Web , 1999, Nature.

[12]  Paul Erdös,et al.  On random graphs, I , 1959 .

[13]  Bart Selman,et al.  The state of SAT , 2007, Discret. Appl. Math..

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

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

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

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

[18]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Morphing: Combining Structure and Randomness , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[19]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Search on High Degree Graphs , 2001, IJCAI.

[20]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[21]  Christian Bessiere,et al.  Statistical Regimes Across Constrainedness Regions , 2004, Constraints.

[22]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.