Soundness of Inprocessing in Clause Sharing SAT Solvers

Manthey, Norbert; Philipp, Tobias; Wernhard, Christoph

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39071-5_4

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where for sequential SAT solvers clause learning and formula simplification is very important, parallel SAT solvers benefit especially from sharing the learned clauses. Hence, the compatibility of clause sharing and formula simplification in parallel SAT solvers also has been analyzed [6]. Sound combinations of simplification and sharing have been explained and a novel combination was proposed.…”

Section: Parallel Approaches: Ideas and Weaknessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Next Generation Sequential and Parallel SAT Solvers

Manthey

2015

Künstl Intell

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Parallel Approaches: Ideas and Weaknessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Next Generation Sequential and Parallel SAT Solvers

Manthey

2015

Künstl Intell

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The critical case is when formulas are incorrectly reported to be unsatisfiable, since the answer is hard to verify. Subtle bugs in different components of SAT solvers were reported in [26,34]. Moreover, some bugs only occur in some configurations of SAT solvers, as demonstrated recently with SpyBug [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…The portfolio model P 1 is sound and complete, which in particular shows that more clauses can be shared than in Plingeling. To the best of the authors knowledge, existing formalisms did not included this setting: The formal models in [34] imposed the restriction that at most one solver applies clause addition techniques, with the consequence that all clauses can be shared; and the formal model in [40] was based on the instance decomposition approach, and all solvers were restricted to equivalence-preserving clause addition techniques.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, one can construct certificates from it. For parallel SAT solvers based on the instance decomposition approach, formal models and proof formats exist such as [21,40], and also formalisms that model some portfolios with arbritrary clause sharing but limited formula simplifications [20,34]. However, they do not include the setting by Plingeling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unsatisfiability Proofs for Parallel SAT Solver Portfolios with Clause Sharing and Inprocessing

Philipp¹

EPiC Series in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State-of-the-art SAT solvers are highly tuned systematic-search procedures augmented with formula simplification techniques. They emit unsatisfiability proofs in the DRAT format to guarantee correctness of their answers. However, the DRAT format is inadequate to model some parallel SAT solvers such as the award-winning system Plingeling. In Plingeling, each solver in the portfolio applies clause addition and elimination techniques. Clause sharing is restricted to clauses that do not contain melted literals. In this paper, we develop a transition system that models the computation of such parallel portfolio solvers. The transition system allows us to formally reason about portfolio solvers, and we show that the formalism is sound and complete. Based on the formalism, we derive a new proof format, called parallel DRAT, which can be used to certify UNSAT answers.

show abstract

“…Finally, not only learned clauses, but also active variables and other information has been shared [6,8]. A discussion about the soundness of clause sharing is presented in [34].…”

Section: Solving Sat With the Portfolio Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Cooperative Parallel SAT Solving

Manthey¹,

Lanti²,

Irfan³

EPiC Series in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, powerful parallel SAT solvers are based on an algorithm portfolio. The alternative approach, (iterative) search space partitioning, cannot keep up, although, according to the literature, iterative partitioning systems should scale better than portfolio solvers. This rises often! In this paper we identify key problems in current parallel cooperative SAT solving approaches, most importantly communication, how to partition the search space, and how to utilize the sequential search engine. First, we improve on each problem separately. In a further step, we show that combining all the improvements leads to a state-of-the-art parallel SAT solver, which does not use the portfolio approach, but instead relies on iterative partitioning. The experimental evaluation of this system completely changes the picture about the performance of search space partitioning SAT solvers: on instances of a combined benchmark of recent SAT competitions, the presented approach can keep up with the winners of last years SAT competition. The combined improvements improve the existing cooperative solver splitter by 24%: instead of 561 out of 880 instances, the new solver Pcasso can solve 696 instances.

show abstract

Soundness of Inprocessing in Clause Sharing SAT Solvers

Cited by 14 publications

References 30 publications

Towards Next Generation Sequential and Parallel SAT Solvers

Towards Next Generation Sequential and Parallel SAT Solvers

Unsatisfiability Proofs for Parallel SAT Solver Portfolios with Clause Sharing and Inprocessing

Modern Cooperative Parallel SAT Solving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About