Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
133 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

GraSS: Combining Graph Neural Networks with Expert Knowledge for SAT Solver Selection (2405.11024v1)

Published 17 May 2024 in cs.LG and cs.AI

Abstract: Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems are routinely solved by SAT solvers in real-life applications, yet solving time can vary drastically between solvers for the same instance. This has motivated research into machine learning models that can predict, for a given SAT instance, which solver to select among several options. Existing SAT solver selection methods all rely on some hand-picked instance features, which are costly to compute and ignore the structural information in SAT graphs. In this paper we present GraSS, a novel approach for automatic SAT solver selection based on tripartite graph representations of instances and a heterogeneous graph neural network (GNN) model. While GNNs have been previously adopted in other SAT-related tasks, they do not incorporate any domain-specific knowledge and ignore the runtime variation introduced by different clause orders. We enrich the graph representation with domain-specific decisions, such as novel node feature design, positional encodings for clauses in the graph, a GNN architecture tailored to our tripartite graphs and a runtime-sensitive loss function. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that this combination of raw representations and domain-specific choices leads to improvements in runtime for a pool of seven state-of-the-art solvers on both an industrial circuit design benchmark, and on instances from the 20-year Anniversary Track of the 2022 SAT Competition.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Computational Study. Princeton University Press.
  2. SAT Competition. https://satcompetition.github.io/2022
  3. Armin Biere and Mathias Fleury. 2022. Gimsatul, IsaSAT and Kissat entering the SAT Competition 2022. In Proc. of SAT Competition 2022 – Solver and Benchmark Descriptions (Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B, Vol. B-2022-1), Tomas Balyo, Marijn Heule, Markus Iser, Matti Järvisalo, and Martin Suda (Eds.). University of Helsinki, 10–11.
  4. ASlib: A benchmark library for algorithm selection. Artificial Intelligence (2016).
  5. Combinatorial optimization and reasoning with graph neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 (2023), 1–61.
  6. SAT Competition Committee. 2009. Benchmark Submission Guidelines. http://www.satcompetition.org/2009/format-benchmarks2009.html. Accessed: February 8th, 2024.
  7. SAT Competition Committee. 2023. The International SAT Competition Web Page. http://www.satcompetition.org. Accessed: February 8th, 2024.
  8. Stephen A Cook. 2023. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Logic, Automata, and Computational Complexity: The Works of Stephen A. Cook. 143–152.
  9. James M Crawford and Andrew B Baker. 1994. Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. In Proceedings of the 2nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1092–1097.
  10. Reinforcement learning for automatic online algorithm selection-an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 16th ITAT Conference Information Technologies - Applications and Theory.
  11. William F Dowling and Jean H Gallier. 1984. Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae. The Journal of Logic Programming (1984).
  12. Vijay Durairaj and Priyank Kalla. 2005. Variable ordering for efficient SAT search by analyzing constraint-variable dependencies. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. Springer, 415–422.
  13. Benchmarking graph neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24, 43 (2023), 1–48.
  14. SAT Competition 2020. Artificial Intelligence (2021).
  15. Matteo Gagliolo and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2011. Algorithm portfolio selection as a bandit problem with unbounded losses. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2011).
  16. Malay Ganai and Aarti Gupta. 2007. SAT-based Scalable Formal Verification Solutions. Springer.
  17. Using SAT for combinational equivalence checking. In Proceedings Design, Automation and Test in Europe. Conference and Exhibition 2001. IEEE, 114–121.
  18. Deep Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  19. Machine learning methods in solving the Boolean satisfiability problem. Machine Intelligence Research (2023), 1–16.
  20. Sean B Holden et al. 2021. Machine learning for automated theorem proving: Learning to solve SAT and QSAT. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 14 (2021), 807–989.
  21. Shi-Yu Huang and Kwang-Ting Tim Cheng. 2012. Formal Equivalence Checking and Design Debugging. Vol. 12. Springer Science & Business Media.
  22. Efficient SAT-based bounded model checking for software verification. Theoretical Computer Science 404 (2008), 256–274.
  23. Algorithm selection and scheduling. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming.
  24. Encoding plans in propositional logic. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 374–384.
  25. Automated algorithm selection: Survey and perspectives. Evolutionary computation (2019).
  26. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).
  27. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations.
  28. Can Q-Learning with Graph Networks Learn a Generalizable Branching Heuristic for a SAT Solver?. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  29. HardSATGEN: Understanding the Difficulty of Hard SAT Formula Generation and A Strong Structure-Hardness-Aware Baseline. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
  30. Autofolio: An automatically configured algorithm selector. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (2015).
  31. Deep learning for algorithm portfolios. In Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  32. Boosting sequential solver portfolios: Knowledge sharing and accuracy prediction. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization.
  33. Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In Handbook of satisfiability. IOS press, 133–182.
  34. Simple algorithm portfolio for SAT. Artificial Intelligence Review (2013).
  35. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  36. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12 (2011), 2825–2830.
  37. Daniel Selsam and Nikolaj Bjørner. 2019. Guiding high-performance SAT solvers with unsat-core predictions. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. Springer, 336–353.
  38. Learning a SAT solver from single-bit supervision. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations.
  39. Emina Torlak. 2009. A constraint solver for software engineering: finding models and cores of large relational specifications. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  40. Grigori S Tseitin. 1983. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. Automation of Reasoning 2: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1967–1970 (1983), 466–483.
  41. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  42. Streaming graph neural networks via continual learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1515–1524.
  43. Minjie Yu Wang. 2019. Deep Graph Library: Towards efficient and scalable deep learning on graphs. In ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds.
  44. Weihuang Wen and Tianshu Yu. 2023. W2SAT: Learning to generate SAT instances from Weighted Literal Incidence Graphs. arXiv:2302.00272 [cs.LG]
  45. Evaluating component solver contributions to portfolio-based algorithm selectors. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing.
  46. SATzilla: Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selection for SAT. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (2008).
  47. SATzilla2009: an automatic algorithm portfolio for SAT. (2009).
  48. Emre Yolcu and Barnabás Póczos. 2019. Learning Local Search Heuristics for Boolean Satisfiability. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  49. G2SAT: Learning to Generate SAT Formulas. In Proceedings of the 32th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  50. Heterogeneous graph neural network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 793–803.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets