Skip to main content

Improved Static Symmetry Breaking for SAT

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2016 (SAT 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9710))

Abstract

An effective SAT preprocessing technique is the construction of symmetry breaking formulas: auxiliary clauses that guide a SAT solver away from needless exploration of symmetric subproblems. However, during the past decade, state-of-the-art SAT solvers rarely incorporated symmetry breaking. This suggests that the reduction of the search space does not outweigh the overhead incurred by detecting symmetry and constructing symmetry breaking formulas. We investigate three methods to construct more effective symmetry breaking formulas. The first method simply improves the encoding of symmetry breaking formulas. The second detects special symmetry subgroups, for which complete symmetry breaking formulas exist. The third infers binary symmetry breaking clauses for a symmetry group as a whole rather than longer clauses for individual symmetries. We implement these methods in a symmetry breaking preprocessor, and verify their effectiveness on both hand-picked problems as well as the 2014 SAT competition benchmark set. Our experiments indicate that our symmetry breaking preprocessor improves the current state-of-the-art in static symmetry breaking for SAT and has a sufficiently low overhead to improve the performance of modern SAT solvers on hard combinatorial instances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pronounced “Break it!”.

  2. 2.

    We omit negative literals from the cycle notation, noting that a symmetry always commutes with negation.

  3. 3.

    We again omit negative literals in cycle notation.

  4. 4.

    In case two detected row interchangeability matrices overlap, it is not always possible to choose the order on the variables so that both are broken completely. In this case, one of the row interchangeability groups will only be broken partially.

  5. 5.

    A small adaptation to Algorithm 2 ensures BreakID only selects smallest variables that are not permuted by a previously detected row interchangeability group.

References

  1. Aloul, F., Ramani, A., Markov, I., Sakallah, K.: Solving difficult SAT instances in the presence of symmetry. In: Proceedings of the 39th Design Automation Conference, 2002, pp. 731–736 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aloul, F.A., Markov, I.L., Sakallah, K.A.: Shatter: efficient symmetry-breaking for boolean satisfiability. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 836–839 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aloul, F.A., Sakallah, K.A., Markov, I.L.: Efficient symmetry breaking for Boolean satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 55(5), 549–558 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 399–404 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Balint, A., Belov, A., Heule, M.J., Järvisalo, M.: The 2013 international SAT competition (2013). satcompetition.org/2013

  6. Crawford, J.M., Ginsberg, M.L., Luks, E.M., Roy, A.: Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 148–159. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Devriendt, J., Bogaerts, B.: BreakID, a symmetry breaking preprocessor for SAT solvers (2015). bitbucket.org/krr/breakid

  8. Devriendt, J., Bogaerts, B., Bruynooghe, M.: BreakIDGlucose: On the importance of row symmetry. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Cross-Fertilization Between CSP and SAT (CSPSAT) (2014). http://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/456639

  9. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Flener, P., Frisch, A.M., Hnich, B., Kiziltan, Z., Miguel, I., Pearson, J., Walsh, T.: Breaking row and column symmetries in matrix models. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 462–477. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46135-3_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. The GAP Group: GAP - Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.7.9 (2015). www.gap-system.org

  12. Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39, 297–308 (1985). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304397585901446. Third Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science

  13. Jefferson, C., Petrie, K.E.: Automatic generation of constraints for partial symmetry breaking. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, pp. 729–743. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23786-7_55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Junttila, T., Kaski, P.: Engineering an efficient canonical labeling tool for large and sparse graphs. In: Applegate, D., Brodal, G.S., Panario, D., Sedgewick, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments and the Fourth Workshop on Analytic Algorithms and Combinatorics, pp. 135–149. SIAM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Katebi, H., Sakallah, K.A., Markov, I.L.: Symmetry and satisfiability: an update. In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S. (eds.) SAT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6175, pp. 113–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee, J.H.M., Li, J.: Increasing symmetry breaking by preserving target symmetries. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7514, pp. 422–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Breaking symmetries in SAT matrix models. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 22–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. McDonald, I., Smith, B.: Partial symmetry breaking. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 431–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46135-3_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. McKay, B.D., Piperno, A.: Practical graph isomorphism. J. Symbolic Comput. 60, 94–112 (2014). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747717113001193

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Puget, J.F.: Breaking symmetries in all-different problems. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2005, pp. 272–277 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sabharwal, A.: Symchaff: exploiting symmetry in a structure-aware satisfiability solver. Constraints 14(4), 478–505 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10601-008-9060-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Sakallah, K.A.: Symmetry and satisfiability. In: Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability, vol. 185, pp. 289–338. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schaafsma, B., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H.: Dynamic symmetry breaking by simulating Zykov contraction. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 223–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_22

    Google Scholar 

  24. Seress, Á.: Permutation Group Algorithms. Cambridge University Press (2003). cambridgeBooksOnline. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546549

  25. Shlyakhter, I.: Generating effective symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(12), 1539–1548 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2005.10.018

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 34(1), 209–219. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/7531.8928

    Google Scholar 

  27. Walsh, T.: Symmetry breaking constraints: Recent results. CoRR abs/1204.3348 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the project GOA 13/010 Research Fund KU Leuven and projects G.0489.10, G.0357.12 and G.0922.13 of FWO (Research Foundation - Flanders). Bart Bogaerts is supported by the Finnish Center of Excellence in Computational Inference Research (COIN) funded by the Academy of Finland (grant #251170).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Devriendt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Devriendt, J., Bogaerts, B., Bruynooghe, M., Denecker, M. (2016). Improved Static Symmetry Breaking for SAT. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2016. SAT 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9710. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40969-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40970-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics