359 research outputs found
Hidden Structure in Unsatisfiable Random 3-SAT: an Empirical Study
Recent advances in propositional satisfiability (SAT) include studying the hidden structure of unsatisfiable formulas, i.e. explaining why a given formula is unsatisfiable. Although theoretical work on the topic has been developed in the past, only recently two empirical successful approaches have been proposed: extracting unsatisfiable cores and identifying strong backdoors. An unsatisfiable core is a subset of clauses that defines a sub-formula that is also unsatisfiable, whereas a strong backdoor defines a subset of variables which assigned with all values allow concluding that the formula is unsatisfiable. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, we study the relation between the search complexity of unsatisfiable random 3-SAT formulas and the sizes of unsatisfiable cores and strong backdoors. For this purpose, we use an existing algorithm which uses an approximated approach for calculating these values. Second, we introduce a new algorithm that optimally reduces the size of unsatisfiable cores and strong backdoors, thus giving more accurate results. Experimental results indicate that the search complexity of unsatisfiable random 3-SAT formulas is related with the size of unsatisfiable cores and strong backdoors. 1
Backdoors to Normality for Disjunctive Logic Programs
Over the last two decades, propositional satisfiability (SAT) has become one
of the most successful and widely applied techniques for the solution of
NP-complete problems. The aim of this paper is to investigate theoretically how
Sat can be utilized for the efficient solution of problems that are harder than
NP or co-NP. In particular, we consider the fundamental reasoning problems in
propositional disjunctive answer set programming (ASP), Brave Reasoning and
Skeptical Reasoning, which ask whether a given atom is contained in at least
one or in all answer sets, respectively. Both problems are located at the
second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy and thus assumed to be harder than NP
or co-NP. One cannot transform these two reasoning problems into SAT in
polynomial time, unless the Polynomial Hierarchy collapses. We show that
certain structural aspects of disjunctive logic programs can be utilized to
break through this complexity barrier, using new techniques from Parameterized
Complexity. In particular, we exhibit transformations from Brave and Skeptical
Reasoning to SAT that run in time O(2^k n^2) where k is a structural parameter
of the instance and n the input size. In other words, the reduction is
fixed-parameter tractable for parameter k. As the parameter k we take the size
of a smallest backdoor with respect to the class of normal (i.e.,
disjunction-free) programs. Such a backdoor is a set of atoms that when deleted
makes the program normal. In consequence, the combinatorial explosion, which is
expected when transforming a problem from the second level of the Polynomial
Hierarchy to the first level, can now be confined to the parameter k, while the
running time of the reduction is polynomial in the input size n, where the
order of the polynomial is independent of k.Comment: A short version will appear in the Proceedings of the Proceedings of
the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'13). A preliminary
version of the paper was presented on the workshop Answer Set Programming and
Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2012), 5th International Workshop,
September 4, 2012, Budapest, Hungar
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
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
Existence versus Exploitation: The Opacity of Backbones and Backdoors Under a Weak Assumption
Backdoors and backbones of Boolean formulas are hidden structural properties.
A natural goal, already in part realized, is that solver algorithms seek to
obtain substantially better performance by exploiting these structures.
However, the present paper is not intended to improve the performance of SAT
solvers, but rather is a cautionary paper. In particular, the theme of this
paper is that there is a potential chasm between the existence of such
structures in the Boolean formula and being able to effectively exploit them.
This does not mean that these structures are not useful to solvers. It does
mean that one must be very careful not to assume that it is computationally
easy to go from the existence of a structure to being able to get one's hands
on it and/or being able to exploit the structure.
For example, in this paper we show that, under the assumption that P
NP, there are easily recognizable families of Boolean formulas with strong
backdoors that are easy to find, yet for which it is hard (in fact,
NP-complete) to determine whether the formulas are satisfiable. We also show
that, also under the assumption P NP, there are easily recognizable sets
of Boolean formulas for which it is hard (in fact, NP-complete) to determine
whether they have a large backbone
- …