Hiding Satisfying Assignments: Two are Better than One

The evaluation of incomplete satisfiability solvers depends critically on the availability of hard satisfiable instances. A plausible source of such instances consists of random k-SAT formulas whose clauses are chosen uniformly from among all clauses satisfying some randomly chosen truth assignment A. Unfortunately, instances generated in this manner tend to be relatively easy and can be solved efficiently by practical heuristics. Roughly speaking, as the formula's density increases, for a number of different algorithms, A acts as a stronger and stronger attractor. Motivated by recent results on the geometry of the space of satisfying truth assignments of random k-SAT and NAE-k-SAT formulas, we introduce a simple twist on this basic model, which appears to dramatically increase its hardness. Namely, in addition to forbidding the clauses violated by the hidden assignment A, we also forbid the clauses violated by its complement, so that both A and complement of A are satisfying. It appears that under this "symmetrization'' the effects of the two attractors largely cancel out, making it much harder for algorithms to find any truth assignment. We give theoretical and experimental evidence supporting this assertion.Comment: Preliminary version appeared in AAAI 200

A Survey of Satisfiability Modulo Theory

Satisfiability modulo theory (SMT) consists in testing the satisfiability of first-order formulas over linear integer or real arithmetic, or other theories. In this survey, we explain the combination of propositional satisfiability and decision procedures for conjunctions known as DPLL(T), and the alternative "natural domain" approaches. We also cover quantifiers, Craig interpolants, polynomial arithmetic, and how SMT solvers are used in automated software analysis.Comment: Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing, Sep 2016, Bucharest, Romania. 201

Towards Understanding and Harnessing the Potential of Clause Learning

Efficient implementations of DPLL with the addition of clause learning are the fastest complete Boolean satisfiability solvers and can handle many significant real-world problems, such as verification, planning and design. Despite its importance, little is known of the ultimate strengths and limitations of the technique. This paper presents the first precise characterization of clause learning as a proof system (CL), and begins the task of understanding its power by relating it to the well-studied resolution proof system. In particular, we show that with a new learning scheme, CL can provide exponentially shorter proofs than many proper refinements of general resolution (RES) satisfying a natural property. These include regular and Davis-Putnam resolution, which are already known to be much stronger than ordinary DPLL. We also show that a slight variant of CL with unlimited restarts is as powerful as RES itself. Translating these analytical results to practice, however, presents a challenge because of the nondeterministic nature of clause learning algorithms. We propose a novel way of exploiting the underlying problem structure, in the form of a high level problem description such as a graph or PDDL specification, to guide clause learning algorithms toward faster solutions. We show that this leads to exponential speed-ups on grid and randomized pebbling problems, as well as substantial improvements on certain ordering formulas

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

On OBDD-Based Algorithms and Proof Systems That Dynamically Change Order of Variables

In 2004 Atserias, Kolaitis and Vardi proposed OBDD-based propositional proof systems that prove unsatisfiability of a CNF formula by deduction of identically false OBDD from OBDDs representing clauses of the initial formula. All OBDDs in such proofs have the same order of variables. We initiate the study of OBDD based proof systems that additionally contain a rule that allows to change the order in OBDDs. At first we consider a proof system OBDD(and, reordering) that uses the conjunction (join) rule and the rule that allows to change the order. We exponentially separate this proof system from OBDD(and)-proof system that uses only the conjunction rule. We prove two exponential lower bounds on the size of OBDD(and, reordering)-refutations of Tseitin formulas and the pigeonhole principle. The first lower bound was previously unknown even for OBDD(and)-proofs and the second one extends the result of Tveretina et al. from OBDD(and) to OBDD(and, reordering). In 2004 Pan and Vardi proposed an approach to the propositional satisfiability problem based on OBDDs and symbolic quantifier elimination (we denote algorithms based on this approach as OBDD(and, exists)-algorithms. We notice that there exists an OBDD(and, exists)-algorithm that solves satisfiable and unsatisfiable Tseitin formulas in polynomial time. In contrast, we show that there exist formulas representing systems of linear equations over F_2 that are hard for OBDD(and, exists, reordering)-algorithms. Our hard instances are satisfiable formulas representing systems of linear equations over F_2 that correspond to some checksum matrices of error correcting codes

Structure and Problem Hardness: Goal Asymmetry and DPLL Proofs in<br> SAT-Based Planning

In Verification and in (optimal) AI Planning, a successful method is to formulate the application as boolean satisfiability (SAT), and solve it with state-of-the-art DPLL-based procedures. There is a lack of understanding of why this works so well. Focussing on the Planning context, we identify a form of problem structure concerned with the symmetrical or asymmetrical nature of the cost of achieving the individual planning goals. We quantify this sort of structure with a simple numeric parameter called AsymRatio, ranging between 0 and 1. We run experiments in 10 benchmark domains from the International Planning Competitions since 2000; we show that AsymRatio is a good indicator of SAT solver performance in 8 of these domains. We then examine carefully crafted synthetic planning domains that allow control of the amount of structure, and that are clean enough for a rigorous analysis of the combinatorial search space. The domains are parameterized by size, and by the amount of structure. The CNFs we examine are unsatisfiable, encoding one planning step less than the length of the optimal plan. We prove upper and lower bounds on the size of the best possible DPLL refutations, under different settings of the amount of structure, as a function of size. We also identify the best possible sets of branching variables (backdoors). With minimum AsymRatio, we prove exponential lower bounds, and identify minimal backdoors of size linear in the number of variables. With maximum AsymRatio, we identify logarithmic DPLL refutations (and backdoors), showing a doubly exponential gap between the two structural extreme cases. The reasons for this behavior -- the proof arguments -- illuminate the prototypical patterns of structure causing the empirical behavior observed in the competition benchmarks

From average case complexity to improper learning complexity

The basic problem in the PAC model of computational learning theory is to determine which hypothesis classes are efficiently learnable. There is presently a dearth of results showing hardness of learning problems. Moreover, the existing lower bounds fall short of the best known algorithms. The biggest challenge in proving complexity results is to establish hardness of {\em improper learning} (a.k.a. representation independent learning).The difficulty in proving lower bounds for improper learning is that the standard reductions from $\mathbf{NP}$-hard problems do not seem to apply in this context. There is essentially only one known approach to proving lower bounds on improper learning. It was initiated in (Kearns and Valiant 89) and relies on cryptographic assumptions. We introduce a new technique for proving hardness of improper learning, based on reductions from problems that are hard on average. We put forward a (fairly strong) generalization of Feige's assumption (Feige 02) about the complexity of refuting random constraint satisfaction problems. Combining this assumption with our new technique yields far reaching implications. In particular, 1. Learning $\mathrm{DNF}$'s is hard. 2. Agnostically learning halfspaces with a constant approximation ratio is hard. 3. Learning an intersection of $\omega(1)$ halfspaces is hard.Comment: 34 page