Abstract
Motivated by our own industrial users, we attack the following challenge that is crucial in many practical planning, scheduling or timetabling applications. Assume that a solver has found a solution for a given hard problem and, due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., re-scheduling), or after an analysis by a committee, a few more constraints have to be added and the solver has to be re-run. Then it is almost always important that the new solution is “close” to the original one.
The activity-based variable selection heuristics used by SAT solvers make search chaotic, i.e., extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. Therefore, re-running with just one additional clause added at the end of the input usually gives a completely different solution. We show that naive approaches for finding close solutions do not work at all, and that solving the Boolean optimization problem is far too inefficient: to find a reasonably close solution, state-of-the-art tools typically require much more time than was needed to solve the original problem.
Here we propose the first (to our knowledge) approach that obtains close solutions quickly. In fact, it typically finds the optimal (i.e., closest) solution in only 25% of the time the solver took in solving the original problem. Our approach requires no deep theoretical or conceptual innovations. Still, it is non-trivial to come up with and will certainly be valuable for researchers and practitioners facing the same problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ansótegui, C., Bonet, M.L., Levy, J.: Solving (weighted) partial maxsat through satisfiability testing. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 427–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Bailleux, O., Marquis, P.: Some computational aspects of distance-sat. J. Autom. Reasoning 37(4), 231–260 (2006)
Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A Machine Program for Theorem-Proving. Comm. of the ACM, CACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: A Fast and Robust SAT-Solver. In: 2002 Conference on Design, Automation, and Test in Europe, DATE 2002, pp. 142–149. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)
Hebrard, E., Hnich, B., O’Sullivan, B., Walsh, T.: Finding diverse and similar solutions in constraint programming. In: 20th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 372–377 (2005)
Heras, F., Larrosa, J., Oliveras, A.: MiniMaxSAT: An efficient Weighted Max-SAT Solver. J. Artificial Intell. Research 31, 1–32 (2008)
Larrosa, J., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: Branch and bound for boolean optimization and the generation of optimality certificates. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 453–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Larrosa, J., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: A framework for certified boolean branch-and-bound optimization. J. Autom. Reasoning 46(1), 81–102 (2011)
Manquinho, V., Marques-Silva, J.: Satisfiability-based algorithms for boolean optimization. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 40(3-4), 353–372 (2004)
Manquinho, V., Silva, J.M., Planes, J.: Algorithms for weighted boolean optimization. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 495–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM, JACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)
Ohrimenko, O., Stuckey, P.J., Codish, M.: Propagation via lazy clause generation. Constraints 14(3), 357–391 (2009)
Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: On modern clause-learning satisfiability solvers. J. Autom. Reason. 44(3), 277–301 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Abío, I., Deters, M., Nieuwenhuis, R., Stuckey, P.J. (2011). Reducing Chaos in SAT-Like Search: Finding Solutions Close to a Given One. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2011. SAT 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6695. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21580-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21581-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)