SAT solvers have been moving to more frequent restarts. Can restarts completely replace local search?

Uwe Schöning‘s randomised Walksat algorithm for k-SAT assumes some local search. The algorithm in his 2002 paper A Probabilistic Algorithm for k-SAT Based on Limited Local Search and Restart, guesses a random assignment for the variables, then times tries randomly flipping one of the literals in one of the non-satisfied clauses. This procedure is repeated times (for ). This has a one-sided error of at most . In other words, it achieves an runtime bound for satisfiable instances of 3-SAT, with probability very, very nearly 1. In contrast, the brute force algorithm for SAT may require time.

Walksat without local search will find a satisfying assignment with probability depending on the density of solutions, the number of guesses, and whether guesses are repeated. The probability of finding a solution from one guess can be as low as , if there is just a single solution. Repeated guessing times (with no checking for duplicate guesses) will then find a solution with probability . If we want this to be greater than , then in the worst case of a single solution, must be greater than .

With no duplicate guesses (which is more difficult to ensure), the probability of finding no solution is

which for small relative to is still close to

On the other hand, Paturi et al. showed this can be improved in some cases. Their approach is to first saturate the clause set by doing resolution to generate clauses up to some fixed size. Then they pick a random variable ordering and a random assignment, and assign the variables in order to satisfy unit clauses, or otherwise from the assignment. This is then repeated many times to boost probability of success. This is discussed in An Improved

Exponential-Time Algorithm for k-SAT. (This appeared in 2005, based on a preliminary version at FOCS 1998!) When solutions are far apart, they say this “causes frequent occurrence of unit clauses in the process, thus the probability that a satisfying assignment is found is high”. This seems to indicate that immediate restarts might be a good policy in this setup.

At least at first glance, Schöning’s algorithm doesn’t try very hard to exploit structure; the Paturi et al. algorithm appears to dig a little deeper. Schöning in the abstract of his invited talk Comparing Two Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems, to be presented at CSR 2010 in June, suggests that Moser’s algorithm presented at STOC 2009 might be worth looking at it in more detail, as another possible approach.

In contrast, SAT solvers try very hard to exploit structure, through clause learning.

Armin Biere’s talk on the history of SAT up to 2007 mentions how restarts have been getting more and more frequent (see page 31, slide 30/44).

In particular, as of 2007,

- ZChaff restarted every 10000 conflicts,
- MiniSAT restarted every 100 conflicts, and
- PicoSAT restarted every 100 conflicts but could be more frequent.

In addition to the above heuristics based on SAT solving in practice, Schöning suggested in 2007 that restarts were important on theoretical grounds, in the paper Principles of Stochastic Local Search.

**Question 1** * Can an immediate-restart policy work for 3-SAT? *

Or has this been done already?

*(Edit 20100415: fixed link to paper by Paturi et al.)*

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

## Immediate SAT restarts?

Tags: papers

SAT solvers have been moving to more frequent restarts. Can restarts completely replace local search?

Uwe Schöning‘s randomised Walksat algorithm for k-SAT assumes some local search. The algorithm in his 2002 paper A Probabilistic Algorithm for k-SAT Based on Limited Local Search and Restart, guesses a random assignment for the variables, then times tries randomly flipping one of the literals in one of the non-satisfied clauses. This procedure is repeated times (for ). This has a one-sided error of at most . In other words, it achieves an runtime bound for satisfiable instances of 3-SAT, with probability very, very nearly 1. In contrast, the brute force algorithm for SAT may require time.

Walksat without local search will find a satisfying assignment with probability depending on the density of solutions, the number of guesses, and whether guesses are repeated. The probability of finding a solution from one guess can be as low as , if there is just a single solution. Repeated guessing times (with no checking for duplicate guesses) will then find a solution with probability . If we want this to be greater than , then in the worst case of a single solution, must be greater than .

With no duplicate guesses (which is more difficult to ensure), the probability of finding no solution is

which for small relative to is still close to

On the other hand, Paturi et al. showed this can be improved in some cases. Their approach is to first saturate the clause set by doing resolution to generate clauses up to some fixed size. Then they pick a random variable ordering and a random assignment, and assign the variables in order to satisfy unit clauses, or otherwise from the assignment. This is then repeated many times to boost probability of success. This is discussed in An Improved

Exponential-Time Algorithm for k-SAT. (This appeared in 2005, based on a preliminary version at FOCS 1998!) When solutions are far apart, they say this “causes frequent occurrence of unit clauses in the process, thus the probability that a satisfying assignment is found is high”. This seems to indicate that immediate restarts might be a good policy in this setup.

At least at first glance, Schöning’s algorithm doesn’t try very hard to exploit structure; the Paturi et al. algorithm appears to dig a little deeper. Schöning in the abstract of his invited talk Comparing Two Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems, to be presented at CSR 2010 in June, suggests that Moser’s algorithm presented at STOC 2009 might be worth looking at it in more detail, as another possible approach.

In contrast, SAT solvers try very hard to exploit structure, through clause learning.

Armin Biere’s talk on the history of SAT up to 2007 mentions how restarts have been getting more and more frequent (see page 31, slide 30/44).

In particular, as of 2007,

In addition to the above heuristics based on SAT solving in practice, Schöning suggested in 2007 that restarts were important on theoretical grounds, in the paper Principles of Stochastic Local Search.

Or has this been done already?

(Edit 20100415: fixed link to paper by Paturi et al.)## Like this:

Related