On the van der Waerden numbers w(2;3,t)

We present results and conjectures on the van der Waerden numbers w(2;3,t) and on the new palindromic van der Waerden numbers pdw(2;3,t). We have computed the new number w(2;3,19) = 349, and we provide lower bounds for 20 <= t <= 39, where for t <= 30 we conjecture these lower bounds to be exact. The lower bounds for 24 <= t <= 30 refute the conjecture that w(2;3,t) <= t^2, and we present an improved conjecture. We also investigate regularities in the good partitions (certificates) to better understand the lower bounds. Motivated by such reglarities, we introduce *palindromic van der Waerden numbers* pdw(k; t_0,...,t_{k-1}), defined as ordinary van der Waerden numbers w(k; t_0,...,t_{k-1}), however only allowing palindromic solutions (good partitions), defined as reading the same from both ends. Different from the situation for ordinary van der Waerden numbers, these "numbers" need actually to be pairs of numbers. We compute pdw(2;3,t) for 3 <= t <= 27, and we provide lower bounds, which we conjecture to be exact, for t <= 35. All computations are based on SAT solving, and we discuss the various relations between SAT solving and Ramsey theory. Especially we introduce a novel (open-source) SAT solver, the tawSolver, which performs best on the SAT instances studied here, and which is actually the original DLL-solver, but with an efficient implementation and a modern heuristic typical for look-ahead solvers (applying the theory developed in the SAT handbook article of the second author).Comment: Second version 25 pages, updates of numerical data, improved formulations, and extended discussions on SAT. Third version 42 pages, with SAT solver data (especially for new SAT solver) and improved representation. Fourth version 47 pages, with updates and added explanation

On Tackling the Limits of Resolution in SAT Solving

The practical success of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers stems from the CDCL (Conflict-Driven Clause Learning) approach to SAT solving. However, from a propositional proof complexity perspective, CDCL is no more powerful than the resolution proof system, for which many hard examples exist. This paper proposes a new problem transformation, which enables reducing the decision problem for formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF) to the problem of solving maximum satisfiability over Horn formulas. Given the new transformation, the paper proves a polynomial bound on the number of MaxSAT resolution steps for pigeonhole formulas. This result is in clear contrast with earlier results on the length of proofs of MaxSAT resolution for pigeonhole formulas. The paper also establishes the same polynomial bound in the case of modern core-guided MaxSAT solvers. Experimental results, obtained on CNF formulas known to be hard for CDCL SAT solvers, show that these can be efficiently solved with modern MaxSAT solvers

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New