A Randomization Strategy for Combinatorial Search

Recent work on the combinatorial search has provided experimental and theoretical evidence that randomization and restart strategies proposed by Gomes, Selman, and Kautz, can be very effective for backtrack search algorithms to solve some hard satisfiable instances of SAT. One difficulty of effectively using the restart strategy is its potential conflict with the branching heuristic. It is well-known that a completely random branching heuristic yields very poor performance. To support the restart strategy, the branching heuristic has to be random (with limitation); otherwise, every restart is a repetition of the first run. In this paper, we propose a new randomization strategy which offers the same advantage of the restart strategy but it can be used with any branching heuristics. The basic idea is to randomly jump in the search space to skip some space. Each jump corresponds to a restart in the restart strategy but there is no repetition. We ensure that no portion of the search space is visited twice during one run and the search will be going on until the allotted time is run out or the search space is exhausted. This new strategy is implemented in SATO, an efficient implementation of the Davis-Putnam-Loveland method for SAT problems. Using the new strategy, we are able to solve several previously open quasigroup problems, which could not be solved using any existing SAT systems.

[1]  Barbara M. Smith,et al.  Sparse Constraint Graphs and Exceptionally Hard Problems , 1995, IJCAI.

[2]  Bart Selman,et al.  Randomization in Backtrack Search: Exploiting Heavy-Tailed Profiles for Solving Hard Scheduling Problems , 1998, AIPS.

[3]  Maria Paola Bonacina,et al.  PSATO: a Distributed Propositional Prover and its Application to Quasigroup Problems , 1996, J. Symb. Comput..

[4]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  Complete Search Restart Strategies for Satisfiability , 2001 .

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

[6]  Matthew L. Ginsberg,et al.  Limited Discrepancy Search , 1995, IJCAI.

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

[8]  Robert Veroff,et al.  Automated Reasoning and Its Applications: Essays in Honor of Larry Wos , 1997 .

[9]  Roberto J. Bayardo,et al.  Using CSP Look-Back Techniques to Solve Exceptionally Hard SAT Instances , 1996, CP.

[10]  Masayuki Fujita,et al.  Automatic Generation of Some Results in Finite Algebra , 1993, IJCAI.

[11]  James Michael MacFarlane,et al.  Existence , 2022, Encyclopedia of African Religions and Philosophy.

[12]  V. Vinay,et al.  Branching rules for satisfiability , 1995, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[13]  Bart Selman,et al.  Boosting Combinatorial Search Through Randomization , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[14]  Bart Selman,et al.  Heavy-Tailed Phenomena in Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

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

[16]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  Limited resource strategy in resolution theorem proving , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[17]  Hantao Zhang,et al.  SATO: An Efficient Propositional Prover , 1997, CADE.

[18]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  Using Randomization and Learning to Solve Hard Real-World Instances of Satisfiability , 2000, CP.

[19]  Bart Selman,et al.  Heavy-Tailed Distributions in Combinatorial Search , 1997, CP.

[20]  Inês Lynce,et al.  Stochastic Systematic Search Algorithms for Satisfiability , 2001, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[21]  Mark E. Stickel,et al.  Implementing the Davis–Putnam Method , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[22]  Toby Walsh Depth-bounded Discrepancy Search , 1997, IJCAI.

[23]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory , 1960, JACM.

[24]  Richard E. Korf,et al.  Improved Limited Discrepancy Search , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.