Combining Adaptive and Dynamic Local Search for Satisfiability

In this paper we describe a stochastic local search (SLS) procedure for flnding models of satisflable propositional formulae. This new algorithm, gNovelty + , draws on the features of two other WalkSAT family algorithms: AdaptNovelty + and G 2 WSAT, while also successfully employing a hybrid clause weighting heuristic based on the features of two dynamic local search (DLS) algorithms: PAWS and (R)SAPS. gNovelty + was a Gold Medal winner in the random category of the 2007 SAT competition. In this paper we present a detailed description of the algorithm and extend the SAT competition results via an empirical study of the efiects of problem structure, parameter tuning and resolution preprocessors on the performance of gNovelty + . The study compares gNovelty + with three of the most representative WalkSAT-based solvers: AdaptG 2 WSAT0, G 2 WSAT and AdaptNovelty + ; and two of the most representative DLS solvers: RSAPS and PAWS. Our new results augment the SAT competition results and show that gNovelty + is also highly competitive in the domain of solving structured satisflability problems in comparison with other SLS techniques.

[1]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  Scaling and Probabilistic Smoothing: Efficient Dynamic Local Search for SAT , 2002, CP.

[2]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  An adaptive noise mechanism for walkSAT , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Performance Prediction and Automated Tuning of Randomized and Parametric Algorithms , 2006, CP.

[4]  Harry Zhang,et al.  Combining Adaptive Noise and Look-Ahead in Local Search for SAT , 2007, SAT.

[5]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Stochastic Local Search: Foundations & Applications , 2004 .

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

[7]  Fred Glover,et al.  Tabu Search - Part II , 1989, INFORMS J. Comput..

[8]  Chu Min Li,et al.  Diversification and Determinism in Local Search for Satisfiability , 2005, SAT.

[9]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  Effective Preprocessing with Hyper-Resolution and Equality Reduction , 2003, SAT.

[10]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  On the Run-time Behaviour of Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for SAT , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[12]  John Thornton,et al.  Additive versus Multiplicative Clause Weighting for SAT , 2004, AAAI.

[13]  Bart Selman,et al.  Evidence for Invariants in Local Search , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[14]  Paul Morris,et al.  The Breakout Method for Escaping from Local Minima , 1993, AAAI.

[15]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  Old Resolution Meets Modern SLS , 2005, AAAI.

[16]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  Automatic Deduction with Hyper-Resolution , 1983 .

[17]  Duc Nghia Pham,et al.  Modelling and Exploiting Structures in Solving Propositional Satisfiability Problems , 2006 .

[18]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Tabu Search - Part I , 1989, INFORMS J. Comput..

[19]  Dhiraj K. Pradhan,et al.  NiVER: Non Increasing Variable Elimination Resolution for Preprocessing SAT instances , 2004, SAT.

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

[21]  John Thornton,et al.  Clause Weighting Local Search for SAT , 2005, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

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