Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems1 Bart Selman, David Mitchell, Hector J. Levesque Presented by Xiaoxin Yin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) Toby Walsh Cork Constraint Computation Centre University College Cork Ireland 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/sat/
Advertisements

Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) Toby Walsh Cork Constraint Computation Centre University College Cork Ireland 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/sat/
Methods of Proof Chapter 7, second half.. Proof methods Proof methods divide into (roughly) two kinds: Application of inference rules: Legitimate (sound)
CPSC 422, Lecture 21Slide 1 Intelligent Systems (AI-2) Computer Science cpsc422, Lecture 21 Mar, 4, 2015 Slide credit: some slides adapted from Stuart.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View SAT.
1/30 SAT Solver Changki PSWLAB SAT Solver Daniel Kroening, Ofer Strichman.
1 NP-Complete Problems. 2 We discuss some hard problems:  how hard? (computational complexity)  what makes them hard?  any solutions? Definitions 
Properties of SLUR Formulae Ondřej Čepek, Petr Kučera, Václav Vlček Charles University in Prague SOFSEM 2012 January 23, 2012.
Algorithms and Problems for Quantified SAT Toby Walsh Department of Computer Science University of York England Ian P. Gent School of Computer Science.
Phase Transitions of PP-Complete Satisfiability Problems D. Bailey, V. Dalmau, Ph.G. Kolaitis Computer Science Department UC Santa Cruz.
Approximation Algorithms
Methods for SAT- a Survey Robert Glaubius CSCE 976 May 6, 2002.
1 Boolean Satisfiability in Electronic Design Automation (EDA ) By Kunal P. Ganeshpure.
Heuristics for Efficient SAT Solving As implemented in GRASP, Chaff and GSAT.
08/1 Foundations of AI 8. Satisfiability and Model Construction Davis-Putnam, Phase Transitions, GSAT Wolfram Burgard and Bernhard Nebel.
Phase Transitions of PP-Complete Satisfiability Problems D. Bailey, V. Dalmau, Ph.G. Kolaitis Computer Science Department UC Santa Cruz.
Complexity 19-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov More Probabilistic Algorithms.
Methods of Proof Chapter 7, second half.
1 Discrete Structures CS 280 Example application of probability: MAX 3-SAT.
Carla P. Gomes CS4700 CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Carla P. Gomes Module: Instance Hardness and Phase Transitions.
Accelerating Random Walks Wei Wei and Bart Selman Dept. of Computer Science Cornell University.
Computability and Complexity 24-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Approximation.
1 CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Carla P. Gomes Module: Satisfiability (Reading R&N: Chapter 7)
Randomzied Unique k-SAT R. Paturi, P. Pudlak, M.E. Saks and F. Zane An Improved Exponential-time Algorithm for k-SAT Journal of the ACM, Vol 52, No. 3,
Knowledge Representation II (Inference in Propositional Logic) CSE 473 Continued…
1 Paul Beame University of Washington Phase Transitions in Proof Complexity and Satisfiability Search Dimitris Achlioptas Michael Molloy Microsoft Research.
1 Message Passing and Local Heuristics as Decimation Strategies for Satisfiability Lukas Kroc, Ashish Sabharwal, Bart Selman (presented by Sebastian Brand)
Random Walks and Markov Chains Nimantha Thushan Baranasuriya Girisha Durrel De Silva Rahul Singhal Karthik Yadati Ziling Zhou.
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Propositional Logic: Reasoning Originally by Alessandro Agostini and Fausto Giunchiglia Modified by Fausto.
On Bridging Simulation and Formal Verification Eugene Goldberg Cadence Research Labs (USA) VMCAI-2008, San Francisco, USA.
An Algorithmic Proof of the Lopsided Lovasz Local Lemma Nick Harvey University of British Columbia Jan Vondrak IBM Almaden TexPoint fonts used in EMF.
February 18, 2015CS21 Lecture 181 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 18 February 18, 2015.
CHAPTERS 7, 8 Oliver Schulte Logical Inference: Through Proof to Truth.
INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE COS302 MICHAEL L. LITTMAN FALL 2001 Satisfiability.
The satisfiability threshold and clusters of solutions in the 3-SAT problem Elitza Maneva IBM Almaden Research Center.
1 Agenda Modeling problems in Propositional Logic SAT basics Decision heuristics Non-chronological Backtracking Learning with Conflict Clauses SAT and.
S P Vimal, Department of CSIS, BITS, Pilani
Survey Propagation. Outline Survey Propagation: an algorithm for satisfiability 1 – Warning Propagation – Belief Propagation – Survey Propagation Survey.
Algorithms for SAT Based on Search in Hamming Balls Author : Evgeny Dantsin, Edward A. Hirsch, and Alexander Wolpert Speaker : 羅正偉.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2 Cook ’ s Theorem (1971) Prof. Cook Toronto U. Receiving Turing Award (1982) Discussing difficult problems: worst case.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Propositional Logic: Reasoning First version by Alessandro Agostini and Fausto Giunchiglia Second version.
On the Relation between SAT and BDDs for Equivalence Checking Sherief Reda Rolf Drechsler Alex Orailoglu Computer Science & Engineering Dept. University.
First-Order Logic and Inductive Logic Programming.
/425 Declarative Methods - J. Eisner 1 Random 3-SAT  sample uniformly from space of all possible 3- clauses  n variables, l clauses Which are.
SAT 2009 Ashish Sabharwal Backdoors in the Context of Learning (short paper) Bistra Dilkina, Carla P. Gomes, Ashish Sabharwal Cornell University SAT-09.
CPSC 422, Lecture 21Slide 1 Intelligent Systems (AI-2) Computer Science cpsc422, Lecture 21 Oct, 30, 2015 Slide credit: some slides adapted from Stuart.
Review of Propositional Logic Syntax
Accelerating Random Walks Wei Wei and Bart Selman.
Heuristics for Efficient SAT Solving As implemented in GRASP, Chaff and GSAT.
NPC.
NP Completeness Piyush Kumar. Today Reductions Proving Lower Bounds revisited Decision and Optimization Problems SAT and 3-SAT P Vs NP Dealing with NP-Complete.
Why almost all satisfiable k - CNF formulas are easy? Danny Vilenchik Joint work with A. Coja-Oghlan and M. Krivelevich.
SAT Solving As implemented in - DPLL solvers: GRASP, Chaff and
Complexity ©D.Moshkovits 1 2-Satisfiability NOTE: These slides were created by Muli Safra, from OPICS/sat/)
Proof Methods for Propositional Logic CIS 391 – Intro to Artificial Intelligence.
 2005 SDU Lecture15 P,NP,NP-complete.  2005 SDU 2 The PATH problem PATH = { | G is a directed graph that has a directed path from s to t} s t
Heuristics for Efficient SAT Solving As implemented in GRASP, Chaff and GSAT.
The Propositional Calculus
(xy)(yz)(xz)(zy)
First-Order Logic and Inductive Logic Programming
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
CS 416 Artificial Intelligence
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Artificial Intelligence: Agents and Propositional Logic.
Netzer & Miller 1990: On the Complexity of Event Ordering for Shared-Memory Parallel Program Executions.
Provably hard problems below the satisfiability threshold
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Presentation transcript:

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems1 Bart Selman, David Mitchell, Hector J. Levesque Presented by Xiaoxin Yin

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 2 Can SAT be solved in polynomial time in average case? In Goldberg’s paper [Goldberg ‘79] it is claimed that SAT can be solved “on average” in polynomial time. Goldberg’s model of generating formulas  m clauses, n variables, each literal has probability p to be in each clause Is SAT really easy?

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 3 Can SAT be solved in polynomial time in average case? Goldberg’s SAT formulas are easy to solve [Franco & Paull ‘83] Theorem 1: Number of truth assignments for a formula is greater than 2 n (1-ε) with probability 1 Theorem 2: By randomly guessing truth assignments w times, Pr(success)=1 – m/(2 αnw ) assume each clause has at least αr literals

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 4 K-SAT is a harder problem K-SAT: each clause has K literals

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 5 Problem Definition of K-SAT Generate formulas of  N variables  K literals per clause (K = 3 in this paper)  M clauses To generate a clause  Randomly choose K distinct variables  Negate each with probability 0.5 Generate formulas with certain ratio of clauses-to-variables

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 6 DP Procedure DP: a backtracking depth-first search in the space of all truth assignments Procedure DP  Given a set of clauses Σ defined over a set of variables V  Set the value of a variable v and call DP on the simplified formula If this call returns “satisfiable”, then return “satisfiable”  Set v to the opposite value, return the result of calling DP on the re-simplified formula

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 7 Three Common Rules for DP The unit clause rule  If a clause contains only one literal, set it to true The pure literal rule  If a formula contains a literal but not its complement, set it to true The smallest clause rule  If none of the above rules applies, set a variable in a smallest clause The last two rules are not used in this paper

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 8 DP’s Performances on K-SAT Ratio of clauses-to-variables significantly affects the hardness of formulas

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 9 Ratio of Clauses-to-variables vs. Computational Cost Another example in [Mitchell & Levesque ‘96]

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 10 50% Point 50% point: given a certain N (# variables), the point that 50% of generated formulas are satisfiable 50% point is stable w.r.t. ratio of clauses-to- variables N % point

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 11 50% Point – The Hardest Point (cont.) 50% point is close to the location of peak hardness

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 12 Satisfiable vs. Unsatisfiable Formulas Short formulas – under-constrained, have many satisfying assignments Long formulas – over-constrained, contradictions can often be easily found

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 13 Finding All Satisfying Assignments or Contradiction Let DP search the full space, until finding a contradiction Given a set of variables  Ratio of clauses to variables increases →Search space decreases

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 14 Finding All Satisfying Assignments or Contradiction (cont.) Computational cost of DP – monotonically decreases for increasing ratios of clauses to variables

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 15 Satisfiablity when ratio of clause-to- variable is small Pure literal rule: if a formula contains a literal but not its complement  Set this literal to 1  Remove all clauses containing this literal For 3-CNF with up to 1.63n clauses, pure literal rule by itself finds satisfying assignments with high probability [Broder, Frieze & Upfal ‘93]

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 16 Satisfiablity when ratio of clause-to- variable is small Smallest clause rule:  Choose a (random) literal in a (random) smallest clause For 3-CNF with less than 3.003n clauses, by smallest clause rule one can find satisfying assignments with high probability [Frieze & Suen ‘92] By “high probability” we mean Pr → 1 as n → ∞

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 17 Satisfiablity when ratio of clause-to- variable is large When c>4.762, a random 3-SAT formula is unsatisfiable with high probability [Kamath et al ‘94]. Some intuitions of proof:  Consider a certain assignment Z 1, each clause is true with probability 7/8.  Let #F denote number of satisfying assignments on F. E[#F] = 2 n (7/8) cn.  By Markov inequality, P[#F>0]≤E[#F]=(2∙(7/8) c ) n  This probability is exponentially small when c > 5.191

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 18 DP vs. Resolution DP searches for satisfying assignments as well as contradictions Resolution searches for contradictions Some result about resolution  In k-SAT problems of cn clauses, when k ≥ 3 and c2 –k ≥ 0.7, with probability tending to 1 as n goes to infinity, a randomly chosen formula of cn clauses is unsatisfiable, but there exists ε>0 such that every resolution proof must generate at least (1+ε) n clauses [Chvatal & Reed ‘92]  c=5.6 when k=3

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 19 Satisfiability for Different K For a random formula F k (n, cn)  c k = sup{ c : F k (n, cn) is satisfiable with high prob}  c k * = inf{ c : F k (n, cn) is unsatisfiable with high prob} [Kirousis et al ‘98] c k * ≤ 2 k ln2 – (1+ln2)/2 [Achlioptas and Peres ‘03] c k = c k * (1 – o(1)) c k ≥ 2 k ln2 – (k+1)ln2/2 – 1 – δ k (for a certain sequence δ k →0) ckck ck*ck* satisfiableunsatisfiableundetermined

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 20 Satisfiability for Different K (cont.) Lower and upper bounds for different K

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 21 K-SAT with different K’s When K is larger → Higher satisfiability, larger search space when n is large

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 22 P-SAT with different K’s Each variable has certain probability to appear in each clause Each clause has K variables on average

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 23 Solving SAT by Local Search [B. Selman et al ‘92] “A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems” GSAT – greedily search in the space of assignments GSAT algorithm Repeat for MAX-TRIES times randomly generate an assignment repeat for MAX-FLIPS times flip a variable to get largest increase in number of satisfied clauses

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 24 Solving SAT by Local Search (cont.) Performance of GSAT Drawback – cannot prove unsatisfiability

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 25 Thank you!

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 26 Additional Contents Performances of other approaches for solving K-SAT are presented in [Larrabee & Tsuji ‘93], which shows similar results (easy-hard- easy pattern)

Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems 27 Solving 2-SAT in Linear Time Choose a variable x and assign a value (e.g. x=1)  Remove all clauses that are true  Set values to all variables whose values are decided  Propagate in this way until nothing can be done  If contradiction happens, return false A set of clauses are left that are independent with the removed ones  If these clauses are satisfiable, return true  Else return false