SAT Competition 2020

The SAT Competitions constitute a well-established series of yearly open international algorithm implementation competitions, focusing on the Boolean satisfiability (or propositional satisfiability, SAT) problem. In this article, we provide a detailed account on the 2020 instantiation of the SAT Competition, including the new competition tracks and benchmark selection procedures, overview of solving strategies implemented in top-performing solvers, and a detailed analysis of the empirical data obtained from running the competition

SAT Competition 2020

The SAT Competitions constitute a well-established series of yearly open international algorithm implementation competitions, focusing on the Boolean satisfiability (or propositional satisfiability, SAT) problem. In this article, we provide a detailed account on the 2020 instantiation of the SAT Competition, including the new competition tracks and benchmark selection procedures, overview of solving strategies implemented in top-performing solvers, and a detailed analysis of the empirical data obtained from running the competition. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Even shorter proofs without new variables

Proof formats for SAT solvers have diversified over the last decade, enabling new features such as extended resolution-like capabilities, very general extension-free rules, inclusion of proof hints, and pseudo-boolean reasoning. Interference-based methods have been proven effective, and some theoretical work has been undertaken to better explain their limits and semantics. In this work, we combine the subsumption redundancy notion from (Buss, Thapen 2019) and the overwrite logic framework from (Rebola-Pardo, Suda 2018). Natural generalizations then become apparent, enabling even shorter proofs of the pigeonhole principle (compared to those from (Heule, Kiesl, Biere 2017)) and smaller unsatisfiable core generation.Comment: 21 page

Incremental Maximum Satisfiability

Peer reviewe

Evaluating CDCL Variable Scoring Schemes

Abstract. The VSIDS (variable state independent decaying sum) decision heuristic invented in the context of the CDCL (conflict-driven clause learning) SAT solver Chaff, is considered crucial for achieving high efficiency of modern SAT solvers on application benchmarks. This paper proposes ACIDS (average conflict-index decision score), a variant of VSIDS. The ACIDS heuristics is compared to the original implementation of VSIDS, its popular modern implementation EVSIDS (exponential VSIDS), the VMTF (variable move-to-front) scheme, and other related decision heuristics. They all share the important principle to select those variables as decisions, which recently participated in conflicts. The main goal of the paper is to provide an empirical evaluation to serve as a starting point for trying to understand the reason for the efficiency of these decision heuristics. In our experiments, it turns out that EVSIDS, VMTF, ACIDS behave very similarly, if implemented carefully

Faster LRAT Checking Than Solving with CaDiCaL

DRAT is the standard proof format used in the SAT Competition. It is easy to generate but checking proofs often takes even more time than solving the problem. An alternative is to use the LRAT proof system. While LRAT is easier and way more efficient to check, it is more complex to generate directly. Due to this complexity LRAT is not supported natively by any state-of-the-art SAT solver. Therefore Carneiro and Heule proposed the mixed proof format FRAT which still suffers from costly intermediate translation. We present an extension to the state-of-the-art solver CaDiCaL which is able to generate LRAT natively for all procedures implemented in CaDiCaL. We further present Lrat-Trim, a tool which not only trims and checks LRAT proofs in both ASCII and binary format but also produces clausal cores and has been tested thoroughly. Our experiments on recent competition benchmarks show that our approach reduces time of proof generation and certification substantially compared to competing approaches using intermediate DRAT or FRAT proofs