Successfully reported this slideshow.

Introduction to Max-SAT and Max-SAT Evaluation

2

Share

•
Mar. 06, 2014
• 2 likes • 5,243 views
Upcoming SlideShare
Writing a SAT solver as a hobby project
Writing a SAT solver as a hobby project
Loading in …3
×
1 of 42
1 of 42

Introduction to Max-SAT and Max-SAT Evaluation

Mar. 06, 2014
• 2 likes • 5,243 views

2

Share

Download to read offline

Description

The slides for my talk on Feb. 27 2014 at ZIB.

Abstract:
Maximum Satisfiability (Max-SAT) and its weighted variants are optimization extension of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT), and it is interesting that technologies from both AI/CP community and OR community are employed to solve Max-SAT problems.

In this talk, I present brief introduction of SAT/Max-SAT problems, some of solving approaches, and my experience of submitting SCIP and my own SAT-based solver "toysat" to the Max-SAT Evaluation 2013; the annual Max-SAT solver competition. After that, I would like to have a discussion on submitting SCIP to the upcoming Max-SAT Evaluation 2014.

Transcript

  1. 1. Introduction to Max-SAT and Max-SAT evaluation (slightly revised version) Masahiro Sakai 2014-02-27 @ ZIB Berlin
  2. 2. Today’s topics About Myself SAT and related problem classes My experience of Max-SAT evaluation 2013 Towards Max-SAT Evaluation 2014 Conclusion
  3. 3. About myself Masahiro Sakai (酒井 政裕), from Japan I’m NOT an expert of “MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING” nor “OPERATIONS RESEARCH” My background Logic, Programming Language Theory (Domain Theory, Type Theory, Functional Programming), Category Theory, etc. My job at TOSHIBA Software Engineering Model Checking, Specification Mining, etc. Recommendation System
  4. 4. “Software Abstractions” Japanese translation Textbook about “Formal Methods” and Alloy tool
  5. 5. “Types and Programming Languages” Japanese translation Textbook about “type systems”
  6. 6. About myself (cont’d) My recent interests: Decision procedures or Solver algorithms Because of my interests in logic e.g. I’m impressed by decidability of Presburger arithmetic and theory of real closed fields. prevalent usage of SAT/SMT solvers in software engineering (Alloy is one example) Along the way, I also got interested in mathematical programming. I implemented several toy-level implementations of these algorithms.
  7. 7. My hobby project “toysolver”/“toysat”: toy-level implementations of various algorithms Integer Arithmetic Cooper’s Algorithm Omega Test Gomory’s Cut Conti-Traverso Branch-and-bound Real Arithmetic Fourier-Motzkin variable elimination Gröbner basis (Buchberger algorithm) Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition Simplex method Uninterpreted functions Congruence Closure SAT / MaxSAT / Pseudo Boolean github.com/msakai/toysolver
  8. 8. SAT and related problems
  9. 9. SAT SAT = SATisfiability problem (of propositional logic) “Given a propositional formula φ containing propositional variables, Is there a truth assignment M that makes the formula true? (i.e. M ⊧ φ)” SAT solver decides the SAT problem When the formula is satisfiable, it also produce one such truth assignment.
  10. 10. SAT: Examples Example 1: (P∨Q) ∧ (P∨￢Q) ∧ (￢P∨￢Q) → “Satisfiable” (or “Feasible” in mathematical programming term) Assignments: (P,Q) = (TRUE, FALSE)) Example 2: (P∨Q) ∧ (P∨￢Q) ∧ (￢P∨￢Q) ∧ (￢P∨Q) → “Unsatisfiable” (or “Infeasible” in mathematical programming term) Note: Input formula is usually given in CNF (conjunction normal form) CNF ::= Clause ∧ … ∧ Clause Clause ::= Literal ∨ … ∨ Literal Literal ::= Variable | ¬Variable Non-CNF formula can be converted to equi-satisfiable CNF in linear size by introducing auxiliary variables. (“Tseitin encoding”, similar to linearization of 0-1 integer programing)
  11. 11. Why SAT solvers attract attentions? SAT is a classical and canonical NP-complete problem. But SAT solvers speed up drastically in last 15 years State-of-art SAT solver can solve problems of millions of variables and constraints. Many applications in software engineering and other fields, now encode their problems into SAT/SMT and use off-theshelf SAT/SMT solver. to utilize the advances of off-the-shelf solvers to separate two concerns: problem formulation which requires domain knowledge solving algorithms
  12. 12. SAT: Basic algorithm Classical algorithm: DPLL (Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland) algorithm Tree-search algorithm Constraint propagation called unit propagation All except one literals in a clause become false, the remaining literal is assigned to true. Modern improvements CDCL (Conflict-driven clause learning) Non-chronological backtracking Efficient data-structure for constraint propagation Adaptive variable selection heuristics Restarts, Conflict Clause Minimization, Component caching, etc.
  13. 13. Related problems: Max-SAT and Pseudo Boolean Satisfaction/Optimization
  14. 14. “Computer Algebra” field Related Problems more like optimization More Arithmetical RCF (Real Closed Field) PBS Integer Program ming PBO SAT “Mathematical Programming” field Max SAT SMT Automatic Theorem Proving Finite Model Finding “Theorem Proving” field propositional logic to first-order logic Focus of this talk. QBF This is a rough overview. Ignore detailed positions
  15. 15. Max-SAT Max-SAT is an optimization extension of SAT “Given a set of clauses, find an assignment that maximize satisfied clause.” Unlike its name, it’s common to formulate as minimization of VIOLATED clauses. Example: {¬P1∨¬P2, ¬P1∨P3, ¬P1∨¬P3, ¬P2∨P4, ¬P2∨¬P4, P1, P2} → (P1, P2, P3, P4)=(F, F, F, T) , 2 clauses are violated
  16. 16. Partial / Weighted variants of Max-SAT Partial Max-SAT: HARD and SOFT clauses Weighted Max-SAT: Example of Weighted Partial Max-SAT x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x4 each clause has associated cost ￢x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x3 minimize the total costs of violated clauses [8] ￢x2 ∨ ￢x4 Weighted Partial Max-SAT: obvious combination of the two [4] ￢x3 ∨ x2 [3] x1 ∨ x3
  17. 17. Some Algorithms to solve Max-SAT family Convert to Pseudo Boolean Optimization (PBO) or Integer Programming problems. Branch-and-Bound w/ modified version of unit-propagation w/ specific lower bound computation (e.g. using disjoint inconsistent subsets) Unsatisfiability-based (or core-guided) approach Hybrids of those
  18. 18. Conversion to PBO (1) Some SAT solvers are extended to handle more expressive constraints than clauses Clause “L1 ∨ … ∨ Ln” “L1 + … + Ln ≥ 1” if truth is identified with 1-0 Cardinality constraints “at least k of {L1, …, Ln} is true” “L1 + … + Ln ≥ k” Pseudo boolean constraints integer-coefficient polynomial inequality constraints over literals e.g. 2 L1 + 2 L2L3 + L4 ≥ 3
  19. 19. Conversion to PBO (2) Pseudo boolean satisfaction (PBS) satisfiability problems of pseudo-boolean constraints Pseudo boolean optimization (PBO) PBS with objective function ≅ (non-linear) 0-1 integer programming
  20. 20. Conversion to PBO (3) x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x4 ￢x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x3 [8] ￢x2 ∨ ￢x4 [4] ￢x3 ∨ x2 [3] x1 ∨ x3 [2] x6 • • • Minimize 8 r3 + 4 r4 + 3 r5 + 2 ¬x6 Subject to x1 + ￢x2 + x4 ≥ 1 ￢x1 + ￢x2 + x3 ≥ 1 r3 + ￢x2 + ￢x4 ≥ 1 r4 + ￢x3 + x2 ≥ 1 r5 + x1 + x3 ≥ 1 ris are relaxation variables for Soft clause. Unit clause (e.g. x6) does not need a relaxation variable. Further conversion to 0-1 ILP is obvious.
  21. 21. PBS/PBO algorithm PBS SAT solver is extended to handle pseudo-boolean constraints Sometimes “cutting-plane proof system” instead of “resolution” is used for conflict analysis / learning. PBO Satisfiability-based approach Branch-and-Bound Unsatisfiability-based approach
  22. 22. PBO: Satisfiability-based algorithm Minimize Σnj=1 cj lj Subject to P M ← None UB ← ∞ while true if P is SAT M ← getAssignments() UB ← Σnj=1 cj M(lj) P ← P ∧ (Σnj=1 cj lj < UB) else return M and UB Many SAT solver allows incrementally adding constraints and re-solving. (It is faster than solving from scratch, since learnt lemma and other info are reused.) This is linear search on objective values, but binary search and more sophisticated search are also used.
  23. 23. PBO: Branch-and-Bound Various lower-bound computation methods are used. LP relaxation MIS (Maximum Independent Set) lower bounding Lagrange relaxation Note LP relaxation is tighter, but more time-consuming. Therefore, sometimes, more lax but cheeper methods are preferred.
  24. 24. Unsatisfiability-based Max-SAT algorithm Treat all SOFT-clauses as HARD clauses, and invoke SAT solver. If unsatisfiable, relax the unsatisfiable subset, and solve again. First satisfiable result is the optimal solution. φW ← φ while (φW is UNSAT) do Let φC be an unsatisfiable sub-formula of φW VR ← ∅ for each soft clause ω ∈ φC do ωR ← ω ∪ { r } φW ← (φW { ω }) ∪ {ωR } V R ← VR ∪ { r } φR ← { Σ_{r∈VR} r ≤ 1 } φW ← φW ∪ φR / Clauses in φR are declared hard / return |φ| − number of relaxation variables assigned to 1 Can be extended for weighted version, but omitted here for simplicity. For detail, see “Improving Unsatisfiability-based Algorithms for Boolean Optimization” by Vasco Manquinho, Ruben Martins and Inês Lynce.
  25. 25. Remark: Semidefinite Optimization Approaches SDP (Semi-definite programming) relaxation of MaxSAT is known to be tighter than LP relaxation. There are beautiful results on approximate algorithms based on SDP relaxation Still there are no practical Max-SAT solver that incorporate SDP, AFAIK.
  26. 26. Max-SAT Evaluation 2013
  27. 27. Max-SAT evaluation Max-SAT evaluation is the annual Max-SAT solver competition one of the solver competitions affiliated with SATconference Why I submitted to Max-SAT 2013? I submitted my “toysat” to the Pseudo Boolean Competition 2012 (PB12) one year ago, and its performance was not so bad in some categories, considering it was not tuned up well. I wanted to re-challenge, but it was the last PB competition, so I moved to Max-SAT evaluation.
  28. 28. Results of PB12: PBS/PBO track DEC-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: SAT 4j PB RES / CP, …, 19th: SCIP spx standard, 20th: toysat / DEC-SMALLINT-NLC 1st: pb_cplex, 2nd: SCIP spx standard, …, 18th: toysat, … DEC-BIGINT-LIN 1st: minisatp, …, 4th: SCIPspx, 16th: toysat, … OPT-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: pb_cplex, 2nd: SCIP spx E, …, 24th: toysat, … OPT-SMALLINT-NLC 1st: SCIP spx E, …, 27th: toysat, … OPT-BIGINT-LIN 1st: SAT4J PB RES / CP, …, 8th: toysat, … / DEC: decision problem (PBS) OPT: optimization problem (PBO) SMALLINT: all coefficients are ≤220 BIGINT: some coefficients are >220 LIN: linear constraints/objective NLC: non-linear …
  29. 29. Results of PB12: WBO track PARTIAL-BIGINT-LIN 1st: Sat4j PB, 2nd: toysat, 3rd: wbo2sat, … PARTIAL-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: SCIP spx, 2nd: clasp, 3rd: Sat4j PB, 4th: toysat, … SOFT-BIGINT-LIN 1st: Sat4j PB, 2nd: toysat, 3rd: npSolver, … SOFT-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: SCIP spx, 2nd: Sat4j PB, 3rd: clasp, 4th: toysat, …
  30. 30. My submission to Max-SAT 2013 toysat: my own SAT-based solver Simple incremental SAT-solving using linear search on objective values (since other features are not tuned up / tested enough) scip-maxsat: SCIP Optimization Suite 3.0.1 with default configuration Simple conversion to 0-1 ILP. glpk-maxsat GLPK 4.45 with default configuration. Simple conversion to 0-1 ILP.
  31. 31. Results for Complete Solvers Winners: Random Crafted Industrial Results of Max-SAT 2013 MaxSAT MaxSatz2013f ISAC+ WMaxSatz09 ISAC+ Maxsatz2013f WMaxSatz09 pMiFuMax ISAC+ WPM1 Weighted ISAC+ Maxsatz2013f ckmax–small ISAC+ Maxsatz2013f WMaxSatz+ — — — Partial ISAC+ WMaxSatz+ WMaxSatz09 ISAC+ SCIP-maxsat ILP ISAC+ QMaxSAT2-mt MSUnCore W. Partial Maxsatz2013f ISAC+ WMaxSatz09 MaxHS ISAC+ ILP ISAC+ WPM1-2013 wMiFuMax This time, toysat did not perform well :( 12/17
  32. 32. My opinion: Benefits of submitting a solver to competitions You can benchmark your solver with others for FREE. Benchmarking solvers is a hassle. Requires lots of resources. Not all solvers are open-source. There are various sets of benchmarks, which sometimes reveal subtle bugs in your solver. PB12 revealed a subtle bug of toysat in conflict analysis of pseudo boolean constraints. Max-SAT 2013 revealed two bugs in SCIP/SoPlex.
  33. 33. Max-SAT 2013: Bugs of SCIP Organizers notified me that SCIP-maxsat produced wrong results on some instances, and I resubmitted fixed version. Case 1: Running out of memory in SoPlex-1.7.1 LP solver leads to declare non-optimal solution as optimal. As an ad-hoc measure, I simply modified SoPlex to terminate its process immediately after memory allocation error w/o exception handling. Case 2: SCIP produced wrong optimal result on ONLY one instance of the competition. SCIP-2.1.1 worked correctly, but SCIP-3.0.1 did not! Michael Winkler fixed the bug. Thanks!!
  34. 34. Towards Max-SAT Evaluation 2014
  35. 35. My Submission Plan Important dates Submission deadline: April 11, 2014 Results of the evaluation: July 8-12, 2014 My plan SCIP and FibreSCIP If you do not submit by yourselves, I’ll submit instead. I’d like to know a configuration that is better than default one. toysat I’m tuning its core implementation now, and I’ll adopt more sophisticated algorithm than linear incremental SAT solving (e.g. core-guided binary search).
  36. 36. Concluding Remarks
  37. 37. Interaction between AI/CP and OR community Now the two fields are overlapping, and interactions between them are active/interesting research area. Examples: SCIP incorporates techniques from SAT/CP. Cutting-plane proof systems in SAT-based PB solvers. SMT solvers use Simplex, cutting-plane, etc. as “theory solvers” for arithmetic theory. I hope this direction yields more fruitful results in the future.
  38. 38. “Computer Algebra” field Related Problems more like optimization More Arithmetical RCF (Real Closed Field) PBS Integer Program ming PBO SAT “Mathematical Programming” field Max SAT SMT Automatic Theorem Proving Finite Model Finding “Theorem Proving” field propositional logic to first-order logic Focus of this talk. QBF This is a rough overview. Ignore detailed positions
  39. 39. Any Questions?
  40. 40. Reference
  41. 41. Reference Diagnose How a CDCL SAT Solver works ω6: ω4: ¬x8 ¬x9 ¬x7 x8 ¬x7 ¬x9 ¬x2 ω5: ¬x2 ¬x7 x9 ¬x7 Implication Graph x3@3 x1@1 x4@4 Reason Side ω1 ω1 ω2 Clause DB • ω1: ¬x1 • ω2: ¬x4 • ω3: ¬x5 • ω4: ¬x7 • ω5: ¬x2 Masahiro Sakai Twitter: @masahiro_sakai 12年9月23日日曜日 Implication Graph ¬x4 x6 ¬x6 x8 ¬x7 x5@4 x5 x7 x2@2 ω3 ω5 ω5 x9@4 ω6 x7@4 x6@4 ω3 • ω6: ¬x8 • ω7: ¬x8 ω4 x8@4 ω6 Conflict Side ¬x9 x9 x9 12年9月23日日曜日 http:/ /www.slideshare.net/sakai/how-a-cdcl-satsolver-works
  42. 42. Appendix: About my icon = + Commutativity makes category theorists happy!
Technology

Description

The slides for my talk on Feb. 27 2014 at ZIB.

Abstract:
Maximum Satisfiability (Max-SAT) and its weighted variants are optimization extension of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT), and it is interesting that technologies from both AI/CP community and OR community are employed to solve Max-SAT problems.

In this talk, I present brief introduction of SAT/Max-SAT problems, some of solving approaches, and my experience of submitting SCIP and my own SAT-based solver "toysat" to the Max-SAT Evaluation 2013; the annual Max-SAT solver competition. After that, I would like to have a discussion on submitting SCIP to the upcoming Max-SAT Evaluation 2014.

Transcript

  1. 1. Introduction to Max-SAT and Max-SAT evaluation (slightly revised version) Masahiro Sakai 2014-02-27 @ ZIB Berlin
  2. 2. Today’s topics About Myself SAT and related problem classes My experience of Max-SAT evaluation 2013 Towards Max-SAT Evaluation 2014 Conclusion
  3. 3. About myself Masahiro Sakai (酒井 政裕), from Japan I’m NOT an expert of “MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING” nor “OPERATIONS RESEARCH” My background Logic, Programming Language Theory (Domain Theory, Type Theory, Functional Programming), Category Theory, etc. My job at TOSHIBA Software Engineering Model Checking, Specification Mining, etc. Recommendation System
  4. 4. “Software Abstractions” Japanese translation Textbook about “Formal Methods” and Alloy tool
  5. 5. “Types and Programming Languages” Japanese translation Textbook about “type systems”
  6. 6. About myself (cont’d) My recent interests: Decision procedures or Solver algorithms Because of my interests in logic e.g. I’m impressed by decidability of Presburger arithmetic and theory of real closed fields. prevalent usage of SAT/SMT solvers in software engineering (Alloy is one example) Along the way, I also got interested in mathematical programming. I implemented several toy-level implementations of these algorithms.
  7. 7. My hobby project “toysolver”/“toysat”: toy-level implementations of various algorithms Integer Arithmetic Cooper’s Algorithm Omega Test Gomory’s Cut Conti-Traverso Branch-and-bound Real Arithmetic Fourier-Motzkin variable elimination Gröbner basis (Buchberger algorithm) Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition Simplex method Uninterpreted functions Congruence Closure SAT / MaxSAT / Pseudo Boolean github.com/msakai/toysolver
  8. 8. SAT and related problems
  9. 9. SAT SAT = SATisfiability problem (of propositional logic) “Given a propositional formula φ containing propositional variables, Is there a truth assignment M that makes the formula true? (i.e. M ⊧ φ)” SAT solver decides the SAT problem When the formula is satisfiable, it also produce one such truth assignment.
  10. 10. SAT: Examples Example 1: (P∨Q) ∧ (P∨￢Q) ∧ (￢P∨￢Q) → “Satisfiable” (or “Feasible” in mathematical programming term) Assignments: (P,Q) = (TRUE, FALSE)) Example 2: (P∨Q) ∧ (P∨￢Q) ∧ (￢P∨￢Q) ∧ (￢P∨Q) → “Unsatisfiable” (or “Infeasible” in mathematical programming term) Note: Input formula is usually given in CNF (conjunction normal form) CNF ::= Clause ∧ … ∧ Clause Clause ::= Literal ∨ … ∨ Literal Literal ::= Variable | ¬Variable Non-CNF formula can be converted to equi-satisfiable CNF in linear size by introducing auxiliary variables. (“Tseitin encoding”, similar to linearization of 0-1 integer programing)
  11. 11. Why SAT solvers attract attentions? SAT is a classical and canonical NP-complete problem. But SAT solvers speed up drastically in last 15 years State-of-art SAT solver can solve problems of millions of variables and constraints. Many applications in software engineering and other fields, now encode their problems into SAT/SMT and use off-theshelf SAT/SMT solver. to utilize the advances of off-the-shelf solvers to separate two concerns: problem formulation which requires domain knowledge solving algorithms
  12. 12. SAT: Basic algorithm Classical algorithm: DPLL (Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland) algorithm Tree-search algorithm Constraint propagation called unit propagation All except one literals in a clause become false, the remaining literal is assigned to true. Modern improvements CDCL (Conflict-driven clause learning) Non-chronological backtracking Efficient data-structure for constraint propagation Adaptive variable selection heuristics Restarts, Conflict Clause Minimization, Component caching, etc.
  13. 13. Related problems: Max-SAT and Pseudo Boolean Satisfaction/Optimization
  14. 14. “Computer Algebra” field Related Problems more like optimization More Arithmetical RCF (Real Closed Field) PBS Integer Program ming PBO SAT “Mathematical Programming” field Max SAT SMT Automatic Theorem Proving Finite Model Finding “Theorem Proving” field propositional logic to first-order logic Focus of this talk. QBF This is a rough overview. Ignore detailed positions
  15. 15. Max-SAT Max-SAT is an optimization extension of SAT “Given a set of clauses, find an assignment that maximize satisfied clause.” Unlike its name, it’s common to formulate as minimization of VIOLATED clauses. Example: {¬P1∨¬P2, ¬P1∨P3, ¬P1∨¬P3, ¬P2∨P4, ¬P2∨¬P4, P1, P2} → (P1, P2, P3, P4)=(F, F, F, T) , 2 clauses are violated
  16. 16. Partial / Weighted variants of Max-SAT Partial Max-SAT: HARD and SOFT clauses Weighted Max-SAT: Example of Weighted Partial Max-SAT x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x4 each clause has associated cost ￢x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x3 minimize the total costs of violated clauses [8] ￢x2 ∨ ￢x4 Weighted Partial Max-SAT: obvious combination of the two [4] ￢x3 ∨ x2 [3] x1 ∨ x3
  17. 17. Some Algorithms to solve Max-SAT family Convert to Pseudo Boolean Optimization (PBO) or Integer Programming problems. Branch-and-Bound w/ modified version of unit-propagation w/ specific lower bound computation (e.g. using disjoint inconsistent subsets) Unsatisfiability-based (or core-guided) approach Hybrids of those
  18. 18. Conversion to PBO (1) Some SAT solvers are extended to handle more expressive constraints than clauses Clause “L1 ∨ … ∨ Ln” “L1 + … + Ln ≥ 1” if truth is identified with 1-0 Cardinality constraints “at least k of {L1, …, Ln} is true” “L1 + … + Ln ≥ k” Pseudo boolean constraints integer-coefficient polynomial inequality constraints over literals e.g. 2 L1 + 2 L2L3 + L4 ≥ 3
  19. 19. Conversion to PBO (2) Pseudo boolean satisfaction (PBS) satisfiability problems of pseudo-boolean constraints Pseudo boolean optimization (PBO) PBS with objective function ≅ (non-linear) 0-1 integer programming
  20. 20. Conversion to PBO (3) x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x4 ￢x1 ∨ ￢x2 ∨ x3 [8] ￢x2 ∨ ￢x4 [4] ￢x3 ∨ x2 [3] x1 ∨ x3 [2] x6 • • • Minimize 8 r3 + 4 r4 + 3 r5 + 2 ¬x6 Subject to x1 + ￢x2 + x4 ≥ 1 ￢x1 + ￢x2 + x3 ≥ 1 r3 + ￢x2 + ￢x4 ≥ 1 r4 + ￢x3 + x2 ≥ 1 r5 + x1 + x3 ≥ 1 ris are relaxation variables for Soft clause. Unit clause (e.g. x6) does not need a relaxation variable. Further conversion to 0-1 ILP is obvious.
  21. 21. PBS/PBO algorithm PBS SAT solver is extended to handle pseudo-boolean constraints Sometimes “cutting-plane proof system” instead of “resolution” is used for conflict analysis / learning. PBO Satisfiability-based approach Branch-and-Bound Unsatisfiability-based approach
  22. 22. PBO: Satisfiability-based algorithm Minimize Σnj=1 cj lj Subject to P M ← None UB ← ∞ while true if P is SAT M ← getAssignments() UB ← Σnj=1 cj M(lj) P ← P ∧ (Σnj=1 cj lj < UB) else return M and UB Many SAT solver allows incrementally adding constraints and re-solving. (It is faster than solving from scratch, since learnt lemma and other info are reused.) This is linear search on objective values, but binary search and more sophisticated search are also used.
  23. 23. PBO: Branch-and-Bound Various lower-bound computation methods are used. LP relaxation MIS (Maximum Independent Set) lower bounding Lagrange relaxation Note LP relaxation is tighter, but more time-consuming. Therefore, sometimes, more lax but cheeper methods are preferred.
  24. 24. Unsatisfiability-based Max-SAT algorithm Treat all SOFT-clauses as HARD clauses, and invoke SAT solver. If unsatisfiable, relax the unsatisfiable subset, and solve again. First satisfiable result is the optimal solution. φW ← φ while (φW is UNSAT) do Let φC be an unsatisfiable sub-formula of φW VR ← ∅ for each soft clause ω ∈ φC do ωR ← ω ∪ { r } φW ← (φW { ω }) ∪ {ωR } V R ← VR ∪ { r } φR ← { Σ_{r∈VR} r ≤ 1 } φW ← φW ∪ φR / Clauses in φR are declared hard / return |φ| − number of relaxation variables assigned to 1 Can be extended for weighted version, but omitted here for simplicity. For detail, see “Improving Unsatisfiability-based Algorithms for Boolean Optimization” by Vasco Manquinho, Ruben Martins and Inês Lynce.
  25. 25. Remark: Semidefinite Optimization Approaches SDP (Semi-definite programming) relaxation of MaxSAT is known to be tighter than LP relaxation. There are beautiful results on approximate algorithms based on SDP relaxation Still there are no practical Max-SAT solver that incorporate SDP, AFAIK.
  26. 26. Max-SAT Evaluation 2013
  27. 27. Max-SAT evaluation Max-SAT evaluation is the annual Max-SAT solver competition one of the solver competitions affiliated with SATconference Why I submitted to Max-SAT 2013? I submitted my “toysat” to the Pseudo Boolean Competition 2012 (PB12) one year ago, and its performance was not so bad in some categories, considering it was not tuned up well. I wanted to re-challenge, but it was the last PB competition, so I moved to Max-SAT evaluation.
  28. 28. Results of PB12: PBS/PBO track DEC-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: SAT 4j PB RES / CP, …, 19th: SCIP spx standard, 20th: toysat / DEC-SMALLINT-NLC 1st: pb_cplex, 2nd: SCIP spx standard, …, 18th: toysat, … DEC-BIGINT-LIN 1st: minisatp, …, 4th: SCIPspx, 16th: toysat, … OPT-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: pb_cplex, 2nd: SCIP spx E, …, 24th: toysat, … OPT-SMALLINT-NLC 1st: SCIP spx E, …, 27th: toysat, … OPT-BIGINT-LIN 1st: SAT4J PB RES / CP, …, 8th: toysat, … / DEC: decision problem (PBS) OPT: optimization problem (PBO) SMALLINT: all coefficients are ≤220 BIGINT: some coefficients are >220 LIN: linear constraints/objective NLC: non-linear …
  29. 29. Results of PB12: WBO track PARTIAL-BIGINT-LIN 1st: Sat4j PB, 2nd: toysat, 3rd: wbo2sat, … PARTIAL-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: SCIP spx, 2nd: clasp, 3rd: Sat4j PB, 4th: toysat, … SOFT-BIGINT-LIN 1st: Sat4j PB, 2nd: toysat, 3rd: npSolver, … SOFT-SMALLINT-LIN 1st: SCIP spx, 2nd: Sat4j PB, 3rd: clasp, 4th: toysat, …
  30. 30. My submission to Max-SAT 2013 toysat: my own SAT-based solver Simple incremental SAT-solving using linear search on objective values (since other features are not tuned up / tested enough) scip-maxsat: SCIP Optimization Suite 3.0.1 with default configuration Simple conversion to 0-1 ILP. glpk-maxsat GLPK 4.45 with default configuration. Simple conversion to 0-1 ILP.
  31. 31. Results for Complete Solvers Winners: Random Crafted Industrial Results of Max-SAT 2013 MaxSAT MaxSatz2013f ISAC+ WMaxSatz09 ISAC+ Maxsatz2013f WMaxSatz09 pMiFuMax ISAC+ WPM1 Weighted ISAC+ Maxsatz2013f ckmax–small ISAC+ Maxsatz2013f WMaxSatz+ — — — Partial ISAC+ WMaxSatz+ WMaxSatz09 ISAC+ SCIP-maxsat ILP ISAC+ QMaxSAT2-mt MSUnCore W. Partial Maxsatz2013f ISAC+ WMaxSatz09 MaxHS ISAC+ ILP ISAC+ WPM1-2013 wMiFuMax This time, toysat did not perform well :( 12/17
  32. 32. My opinion: Benefits of submitting a solver to competitions You can benchmark your solver with others for FREE. Benchmarking solvers is a hassle. Requires lots of resources. Not all solvers are open-source. There are various sets of benchmarks, which sometimes reveal subtle bugs in your solver. PB12 revealed a subtle bug of toysat in conflict analysis of pseudo boolean constraints. Max-SAT 2013 revealed two bugs in SCIP/SoPlex.
  33. 33. Max-SAT 2013: Bugs of SCIP Organizers notified me that SCIP-maxsat produced wrong results on some instances, and I resubmitted fixed version. Case 1: Running out of memory in SoPlex-1.7.1 LP solver leads to declare non-optimal solution as optimal. As an ad-hoc measure, I simply modified SoPlex to terminate its process immediately after memory allocation error w/o exception handling. Case 2: SCIP produced wrong optimal result on ONLY one instance of the competition. SCIP-2.1.1 worked correctly, but SCIP-3.0.1 did not! Michael Winkler fixed the bug. Thanks!!
  34. 34. Towards Max-SAT Evaluation 2014
  35. 35. My Submission Plan Important dates Submission deadline: April 11, 2014 Results of the evaluation: July 8-12, 2014 My plan SCIP and FibreSCIP If you do not submit by yourselves, I’ll submit instead. I’d like to know a configuration that is better than default one. toysat I’m tuning its core implementation now, and I’ll adopt more sophisticated algorithm than linear incremental SAT solving (e.g. core-guided binary search).
  36. 36. Concluding Remarks
  37. 37. Interaction between AI/CP and OR community Now the two fields are overlapping, and interactions between them are active/interesting research area. Examples: SCIP incorporates techniques from SAT/CP. Cutting-plane proof systems in SAT-based PB solvers. SMT solvers use Simplex, cutting-plane, etc. as “theory solvers” for arithmetic theory. I hope this direction yields more fruitful results in the future.
  38. 38. “Computer Algebra” field Related Problems more like optimization More Arithmetical RCF (Real Closed Field) PBS Integer Program ming PBO SAT “Mathematical Programming” field Max SAT SMT Automatic Theorem Proving Finite Model Finding “Theorem Proving” field propositional logic to first-order logic Focus of this talk. QBF This is a rough overview. Ignore detailed positions
  39. 39. Any Questions?
  40. 40. Reference
  41. 41. Reference Diagnose How a CDCL SAT Solver works ω6: ω4: ¬x8 ¬x9 ¬x7 x8 ¬x7 ¬x9 ¬x2 ω5: ¬x2 ¬x7 x9 ¬x7 Implication Graph x3@3 x1@1 x4@4 Reason Side ω1 ω1 ω2 Clause DB • ω1: ¬x1 • ω2: ¬x4 • ω3: ¬x5 • ω4: ¬x7 • ω5: ¬x2 Masahiro Sakai Twitter: @masahiro_sakai 12年9月23日日曜日 Implication Graph ¬x4 x6 ¬x6 x8 ¬x7 x5@4 x5 x7 x2@2 ω3 ω5 ω5 x9@4 ω6 x7@4 x6@4 ω3 • ω6: ¬x8 • ω7: ¬x8 ω4 x8@4 ω6 Conflict Side ¬x9 x9 x9 12年9月23日日曜日 http:/ /www.slideshare.net/sakai/how-a-cdcl-satsolver-works
  42. 42. Appendix: About my icon = + Commutativity makes category theorists happy!
Technology

Recommended

More Related Content

Slideshows for you

Np complete
Md. Shafiuzzaman Hira
lecture 30
sajinsc
lecture 27
sajinsc
Np completeness
Muhammad Saim
Algorithm_NP-Completeness Proof
Im Rafid
Daa notes 3
smruti sarangi
Np cooks theorem
Narayana Galla
P vs NP
Mikel Qafa
NP Complete Problems in Graph Theory
Seshagiri Rao Kornepati
Tsp is NP-Complete
Emre Can Kucukoglu
Introduction to Algorithms and Asymptotic Notation
Amrinder Arora
27 NP Completness
Andres Mendez-Vazquez
A comprehensive view on P vs NP
Abhay Pai
lecture 29
sajinsc
Algorithm chapter 10
chidabdu
Automatski - NP-Complete - TSP - Travelling Salesman Problem Solved in O(N^4)
Aditya Yadav
Algorithm Design and Complexity - Course 1&2
Traian Rebedea
Np completeness h4
Rajendran
A Numerical Analytic Continuation and Its Application to Fourier Transform
HidenoriOgata

Viewers also liked

Sat Subject Test Math II
ctcollegetactics
Sat Subject Test Math I
ctcollegetactics
Practice PSAT #1
ctcollegetactics
Sat Introduction
Briana Songer
ゼロピッチ: MOOC
Masahiro Sakai
6 Steps to Prepare for the SAT
Oxford Tutoring
SAT/SMT solving in Haskell
Masahiro Sakai

Similar to Introduction to Max-SAT and Max-SAT Evaluation

Theorem proving 2018 2019
Emmanuel Zarpas
Learning to Search Henry Kautz
butest
7f44bdd880a385b7c1338293ea4183f930ea
Alvaro
Benchmarking Linear Logic Proofs
Valeria de Paiva
Sc2014 proceedings
Steph Cliche
cade23-schneidsut-atp4owlfull-2011
Michael Schneider
Design and Implementation of Parallel and Randomized Approximation Algorithms
Ajay Bidyarthy
Cp04invitedslide
Jean-Francois Puget
Partial Compilers
Valeria de Paiva
20150603 establishing theoretical minimal sets of mutants (Lab seminar)
Donghwan Shin
Staged Evaluation of Partial-Instances in Alloy
Vajih Montaghami
More on randomization semi-definite programming and derandomization
Abner Chih Yi Huang
Algorithmic techniques-for-big-data-analysis
Hiye Biniam
smtlectures.1
Roberto Bruttomesso
A Simple Algorithm for Minimal Unsatisfiable core
Pvc Pvc
Cjoin
blogboy
Analysis of algorithms
Mallikarjun Biradar
The Automated-Reasoning Revolution: from Theory to Practice and Back
Moshe Vardi
Bounded Model Checking
Ilham Amezzane
Algorithmic techniques-for-big-data-analysis
Atner Yegorov

More from Masahiro Sakai

DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning
Masahiro Sakai
Towards formal verification of neural networks
Masahiro Sakai
関数プログラマから見たPythonと機械学習
Masahiro Sakai
RClassify: Classifying Race Conditions in Web Applications via Deterministic ...
Masahiro Sakai
SAT/SMTソルバの仕組み
Masahiro Sakai
Aluminum: Principled Scenario Exploration through Minimality
Masahiro Sakai
代数的実数とCADの実装紹介
Masahiro Sakai
How a CDCL SAT solver works
Masahiro Sakai
Omega test and beyond
Masahiro Sakai
萩野服部研究室 スキー合宿 2012 自己紹介(酒井)
Masahiro Sakai
自動定理証明の紹介
Masahiro Sakai
“Adoption and Focus: Practical Linear Types for Imperative Programming”他の紹介＠P...
Masahiro Sakai
“Design and Implementation of Generics for the .NET Common Language Runtime”他...
Masahiro Sakai
Relaxed Dependency Analysis
Masahiro Sakai
“Symbolic bounds analysis of pointers, array indices, and accessed memory reg...
Masahiro Sakai
自然言語をラムダ式で解釈する体系PTQのHaskell実装
Masahiro Sakai
Whole Program Paths 等の紹介@PLDIr#3
Masahiro Sakai
Run-time Code Generation and Modal-ML の紹介@PLDIr#2
Masahiro Sakai
Introduction to Categorical Programming (Revised)
Masahiro Sakai
Introduction to Categorical Programming
Masahiro Sakai

Featured

What to Upload to SlideShare
SlideShare
Be A Great Product Leader (Amplify, Oct 2019)
Adam Nash
Trillion Dollar Coach Book (Bill Campbell)
Eric Schmidt
APIdays Paris 2019 - Innovation @ scale, APIs as Digital Factories' New Machi...
apidays
A few thoughts on work life-balance
Wim Vanderbauwhede
Is vc still a thing final
Mark Suster
The GaryVee Content Model
Gary Vaynerchuk
Mammalian Brain Chemistry Explains Everything
Loretta Breuning, PhD
Blockchain + AI + Crypto Economics Are We Creating a Code Tsunami?
Dinis Guarda
The AI Rush
Jean-Baptiste Dumont
AI and Machine Learning Demystified by Carol Smith at Midwest UX 2017
Carol Smith
10 facts about jobs in the future
Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
Harry Surden - Artificial Intelligence and Law Overview
Harry Surden
Inside Google's Numbers in 2017
Rand Fishkin
Pinot: Realtime Distributed OLAP datastore
Kishore Gopalakrishna
How to Become a Thought Leader in Your Niche
Leslie Samuel
Visual Design with Data
Seth Familian
Designing Teams for Emerging Challenges
Aaron Irizarry
UX, ethnography and possibilities: for Libraries, Museums and Archives
Ned Potter
Winners and Losers - All the (Russian) President's Men
Ian Bremmer

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
Bezonomics: How Amazon Is Changing Our Lives and What the World's Best Companies Are Learning from It Brian Dumaine
(4/5)
Free
No Filter: The Inside Story of Instagram Sarah Frier
(4.5/5)
Free
Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car—And How It Will Reshape Our World Lawrence D. Burns
(5/5)
Free
Talk to Me: How Voice Computing Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Think James Vlahos
(4/5)
Free
SAM: One Robot, a Dozen Engineers, and the Race to Revolutionize the Way We Build Jonathan Waldman
(5/5)
Free
From Gutenberg to Google: The History of Our Future Tom Wheeler
(3.5/5)
Free
The Future Is Faster Than You Think: How Converging Technologies Are Transforming Business, Industries, and Our Lives Peter H. Diamandis
(4.5/5)
Free
So You Want to Start a Podcast: Finding Your Voice, Telling Your Story, and Building a Community That Will Listen Kristen Meinzer
(3.5/5)
Free
Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are Seth Stephens-Davidowitz
(4.5/5)
Free
Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy George Gilder
(4/5)
Free
Future Presence: How Virtual Reality Is Changing Human Connection, Intimacy, and the Limits of Ordinary Life Peter Rubin
(4/5)
Free
Live Work Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley Corey Pein
(4.5/5)
Free
How to Survive a Robot Uprising: Tips on Defending Yourself Against the Coming Rebellion Daniel H. Wilson
(4/5)
Free
Carrying the Fire: 50th Anniversary Edition Michael Collins
(4.5/5)
Free
Ninety Percent of Everything: Inside Shipping, the Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes on Your Back, Gas in Your Car, and Food on Your Plate Rose George
(4/5)
Free
The Basics of Bitcoins and Blockchains: An Introduction to Cryptocurrencies and the Technology that Powers Them (Cryptography, Derivatives Investments, Futures Trading, Digital Assets, NFT) Antony Lewis
(4/5)
Free

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
Dignity in a Digital Age: Making Tech Work for All of Us Ro Khanna
(4/5)
Free
After Steve: How Apple Became a Trillion-Dollar Company and Lost its Soul Tripp Mickle
(4.5/5)
Free
The Quiet Zone: Unraveling the Mystery of a Town Suspended in Silence Stephen Kurczy
(4.5/5)
Free
The Wires of War: Technology and the Global Struggle for Power Jacob Helberg
(4/5)
Free
System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot Rob Reich
(4.5/5)
Free
If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation Invented the Future Jill Lepore
(4.5/5)
Free
Liftoff: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That Launched SpaceX Eric Berger
(5/5)
Free
The Science of Time Travel: The Secrets Behind Time Machines, Time Loops, Alternate Realities, and More! Elizabeth Howell
(3/5)
Free
A Brief History of Motion: From the Wheel, to the Car, to What Comes Next Tom Standage
(4.5/5)
Free
An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination Sheera Frenkel
(4.5/5)
Free
The Players Ball: A Genius, a Con Man, and the Secret History of the Internet's Rise David Kushner
(4.5/5)
Free
Bitcoin Billionaires: A True Story of Genius, Betrayal, and Redemption Ben Mezrich
(4.5/5)
Free
User Friendly: How the Hidden Rules of Design Are Changing the Way We Live, Work, and Play Cliff Kuang
(4/5)
Free
Lean Out: The Truth About Women, Power, and the Workplace Marissa Orr
(4.5/5)
Free
Blockchain: The Next Everything Stephen P. Williams
(4/5)
Free
Uncanny Valley: A Memoir Anna Wiener
(4/5)
Free

×