Community-based 3-SAT Formulas with a Predefined Solution
This work addresses the need for better testing benchmarks for SAT solvers, but it is incremental as it extends existing methods by adding community structure considerations.
The paper tackles the problem of generating SAT formulas with predefined solutions for solver testing by proposing an algorithm that incorporates community structures and clause distributions, and finds that community structure strongly affects the hardness for CDCL solvers like gluHack but not for SLS solvers like CPSparrow, with specific parameter settings (e.g., clause-to-variable ratio around 4.25) making formulas hard for both solvers.
It is crucial to generate crafted SAT formulas with predefined solutions for the testing and development of SAT solvers since many SAT formulas from real-world applications have solutions. Although some generating algorithms have been proposed to generate SAT formulas with predefined solutions, community structures of SAT formulas are not considered. We propose a 3-SAT formula generating algorithm that not only guarantees the existence of a predefined solution, but also simultaneously considers community structures and clause distributions. The proposed 3-SAT formula generating algorithm controls the quality of community structures through controlling (1) the number of clauses whose variables have a common community, which we call intra-community clauses, and (2) the number of variables that only belong to one community, which we call intra-community variables. To study the combined effect of community structures and clause distributions on the hardness of SAT formulas, we measure solving runtimes of two solvers, gluHack (a leading CDCL solver) and CPSparrow (a leading SLS solver), on the generated SAT formulas under different groups of parameter settings. Through extensive experiments, we obtain some noteworthy observations on the SAT formulas generated by the proposed algorithm: (1) The community structure has little or no effects on the hardness of SAT formulas with regard to CPSparrow but a strong effect with regard to gluHack. (2) Only when the proportion of true literals in a SAT formula in terms of the predefined solution is 0.5, SAT formulas are hard-to-solve with regard to gluHack; when this proportion is below 0.5, SAT formulas are hard-to-solve with regard to CPSparrow. (3) When the ratio of the number of clauses to that of variables is around 4.25, the SAT formulas are hard-to-solve with regard to both gluHack and CPSparrow.