Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 97 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 50 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 37 tok/s
GPT-5 High 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 110 tok/s
GPT OSS 120B 468 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 236 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

AlphaMapleSAT: An MCTS-based Cube-and-Conquer SAT Solver for Hard Combinatorial Problems (2401.13770v1)

Published 24 Jan 2024 in cs.AI and math.CO

Abstract: This paper introduces AlphaMapleSAT, a novel Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) based Cube-and-Conquer (CnC) SAT solving method aimed at efficiently solving challenging combinatorial problems. Despite the tremendous success of CnC solvers in solving a variety of hard combinatorial problems, the lookahead cubing techniques at the heart of CnC have not evolved much for many years. Part of the reason is the sheer difficulty of coming up with new cubing techniques that are both low-cost and effective in partitioning input formulas into sub-formulas, such that the overall runtime is minimized. Lookahead cubing techniques used by current state-of-the-art CnC solvers, such as March, keep their cubing costs low by constraining the search for the optimal splitting variables. By contrast, our key innovation is a deductively-driven MCTS-based lookahead cubing technique, that performs a deeper heuristic search to find effective cubes, while keeping the cubing cost low. We perform an extensive comparison of AlphaMapleSAT against the March CnC solver on challenging combinatorial problems such as the minimum Kochen-Specker and Ramsey problems. We also perform ablation studies to verify the efficacy of the MCTS heuristic search for the cubing problem. Results show up to 2.3x speedup in parallel (and up to 27x in sequential) elapsed real time.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. Solving NP-hard problems on graphs with extended AlphaGo Zero. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11623, 2019.
  2. Look-ahead based SAT solvers. Handbook of Satisfiability, 336:183, 2021.
  3. A SAT-based resolution of Lam’s problem. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 3669–3676, 2021.
  4. When satisfiability solving meets symbolic computation. Communications of the ACM, 65(7):64–72, 2022.
  5. A survey of Monte Carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games, 4(1):1–43, 2012.
  6. Monte Carlo Forest Search: UNSAT solver synthesis via Reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12581, 2022.
  7. Rémi Coulom. Efficient selectivity and backup operators in Monte-Carlo tree search. In International conference on computers and games, pages 72–83. Springer, 2006.
  8. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, 5(7):394–397, 1962.
  9. SCSat: a soft constraint guided SAT solver. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing–SAT 2013: 16th International Conference, Helsinki, Finland, July 8-12, 2013. Proceedings 16, pages 415–421. Springer, 2013.
  10. Guiding SMT solvers with Monte Carlo tree search and neural networks. In Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Theorem Proving (AITP’2018), 2018.
  11. Maximilian Levi Heisinger. Paracooba enters SAT competition 2022. SAT Competition 2022, page 42, 2022.
  12. Cube and conquer: Guiding CDCL SAT solvers by lookaheads. In Haifa Verification Conference, pages 50–65. Springer, 2011.
  13. Solving and verifying the Boolean Pythagorean triples problem via cube-and-conquer. In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pages 228–245. Springer, 2016.
  14. Marijn Heule. Schur number five. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018.
  15. PySAT: A Python toolkit for prototyping with SAT oracles. In SAT, pages 428–437, 2018.
  16. Improving SAT solving using Monte Carlo tree search-based clause learning. In Advanced Boolean Techniques: Selected Papers from the 13th International Workshop on Boolean Problems, pages 107–133. Springer, 2020.
  17. Finding backdoors to integer programs: a Monte Carlo tree search framework. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3786–3795, 2022.
  18. Bandit based Monte-Carlo planning. In European conference on machine learning, pages 282–293. Springer, 2006.
  19. A SAT solver and computer algebra attack on the minimum Kochen–Specker problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13319, 2023.
  20. Learning rate based branching heuristic for sat solvers. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing–SAT 2016: 19th International Conference, Bordeaux, France, July 5-8, 2016, Proceedings 19, pages 123–140. Springer, 2016.
  21. Norbert Manthey. Parallel by default–mergesat and mergesat-pcasso. SAT Competition 2023, page 34, 2023.
  22. The value of the Ramsey number R (3, 8). Journal of Graph Theory, 16(1):99–105, 1992.
  23. Saeed Nejati. CDCL(Crypto) and machine learning based SAT solvers for cryptanalysis. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 2020.
  24. Monte-Carlo style UCT search for Boolean satisfiability. In Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 177–188. Springer, 2011.
  25. Stanisław Radziszowski. Small Ramsey numbers. The electronic journal of combinatorics, 1000:DS1–Aug, 2011.
  26. Frank P Ramsey. On a problem of formal logic. In Classic Papers in Combinatorics, pages 1–24. Springer, 1987.
  27. Christopher D Rosin. Multi-armed bandits with episode context. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 61(3):203–230, 2011.
  28. Learning to branch with tree MDPs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18514–18526, 2022.
  29. Jens Schloeter. A Monte Carlo tree search based conflict-driven clause learning SAT solver. INFORMATIK 2017, 2017.
  30. Using linearizing sets to solve multivariate quadratic equations in algebraic cryptanalysis. IEEE Access, 2023.
  31. GRASP-a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Aided Design, pages 220–227. IEEE, 1996.
  32. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. nature, 529(7587):484–489, 2016.
  33. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815, 2017.
  34. Monte Carlo tree search: A review of recent modifications and applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(3):2497–2562, 2023.
  35. DRAT-trim: Efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pages 422–429. Springer, 2014.
  36. Towards tackling QSAT problems with Deep Learning and Monte Carlo tree search. In Science and Information Conference, pages 45–58. Springer, 2022.
  37. Oleg Zaikin. Inverting 43-step md4 via cube-and-conquer, 2022.
  38. Mathcheck: A math assistant via a combination of computer algebra systems and SAT solvers. In Automated Deduction-CADE-25: 25th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Berlin, Germany, August 1-7, 2015, Proceedings 25, pages 607–622. Springer, 2015.
Citations (3)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

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

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube