Randomzied Unique k-SAT R. Paturi, P. Pudlak, M.E. Saks and F. Zane An Improved Exponential-time Algorithm for k-SAT Journal of the ACM, Vol 52, No. 3,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Complexity ©D.Moshkovits 1 Where Can We Draw The Line? On the Hardness of Satisfiability Problems.
Advertisements

1 A formula in predicate logic An atom is a formula. If F is a formula then (~F) is a formula. If F and G are Formulae then (F /\ G), (F \/ G), (F → G),
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
CSCI 3160 Design and Analysis of Algorithms Tutorial 4
Gibbs sampler - simple properties It’s not hard to show that this MC chain is aperiodic. Often is reversible distribution. If in addition the chain is.
CPSC 422, Lecture 21Slide 1 Intelligent Systems (AI-2) Computer Science cpsc422, Lecture 21 Mar, 4, 2015 Slide credit: some slides adapted from Stuart.
Lecture 23. Subset Sum is NPC
Lecture 22: April 18 Probabilistic Method. Why Randomness? Probabilistic method: Proving the existence of an object satisfying certain properties without.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View SAT.
1/30 SAT Solver Changki PSWLAB SAT Solver Daniel Kroening, Ofer Strichman.
Generating Hard Satisfiability Problems1 Bart Selman, David Mitchell, Hector J. Levesque Presented by Xiaoxin Yin.
The Theory of NP-Completeness
Properties of SLUR Formulae Ondřej Čepek, Petr Kučera, Václav Vlček Charles University in Prague SOFSEM 2012 January 23, 2012.
Complexity 11-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov NP-Completeness.
Phase Transitions of PP-Complete Satisfiability Problems D. Bailey, V. Dalmau, Ph.G. Kolaitis Computer Science Department UC Santa Cruz.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
1 Boolean Satisfiability in Electronic Design Automation (EDA ) By Kunal P. Ganeshpure.
1 Optimization problems such as MAXSAT, MIN NODE COVER, MAX INDEPENDENT SET, MAX CLIQUE, MIN SET COVER, TSP, KNAPSACK, BINPACKING do not have a polynomial.
Algorithms in Exponential Time. Outline Backtracking Local Search Randomization: Reducing to a Polynomial-Time Case Randomization: Permuting the Evaluation.
Restricted Satisfiability (SAT) Problem
Complexity 19-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov More Probabilistic Algorithms.
–Def: A language L is in BPP c,s ( 0  s(n)  c(n)  1,  n  N) if there exists a probabilistic poly-time TM M s.t. : 1.  w  L, Pr[M accepts w]  c(|w|),
1 Discrete Structures CS 280 Example application of probability: MAX 3-SAT.
Time Complexity.
Computability and Complexity 24-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Approximation.
Complexity ©D.Moshkovitz 1 Paths On the Reasonability of Finding Paths in Graphs.
Clique Cover Cook’s Theorem 3SAT and Independent Set
Randomized Algorithms Morteza ZadiMoghaddam Amin Sayedi.
Random Walks and Markov Chains Nimantha Thushan Baranasuriya Girisha Durrel De Silva Rahul Singhal Karthik Yadati Ziling Zhou.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2012/11/6 P: the class of problems which can be solved by a deterministic polynomial algorithm. NP : the class of decision.
Section 8.1 Estimating  When  is Known In this section, we develop techniques for estimating the population mean μ using sample data. We assume that.
MCS 312: NP Completeness and Approximation algorithms Instructor Neelima Gupta
February 18, 2015CS21 Lecture 181 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 18 February 18, 2015.
1 1. Draw the machine schema for a TM which when started with input 001 halts with abbb on the tape in our standard input format. 2. Suppose you have an.
The Complexity of Optimization Problems. Summary -Complexity of algorithms and problems -Complexity classes: P and NP -Reducibility -Karp reducibility.
Solvers for the Problem of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) Will Klieber Aug 31, 2011 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you.
MCS 312: NP Completeness and Approximation algorthms Instructor Neelima Gupta
On a random walk strategy for the Q2SAT problem K. Subramani.
1 Agenda Modeling problems in Propositional Logic SAT basics Decision heuristics Non-chronological Backtracking Learning with Conflict Clauses SAT and.
NP-COMPLETENESS PRESENTED BY TUSHAR KUMAR J. RITESH BAGGA.
CS344: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture: Herbrand’s Theorem Proving satisfiability of logic formulae using semantic trees (from Symbolic.
EMIS 8373: Integer Programming NP-Complete Problems updated 21 April 2009.
Computer Science Day 2013, May Distinguished Lecture: Andy Yao, Tsinghua University Welcome and the 'Lecturer of the Year' award.
Algorithms for SAT Based on Search in Hamming Balls Author : Evgeny Dantsin, Edward A. Hirsch, and Alexander Wolpert Speaker : 羅正偉.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2 Cook ’ s Theorem (1971) Prof. Cook Toronto U. Receiving Turing Award (1982) Discussing difficult problems: worst case.
NP-Complete Problems. Running Time v.s. Input Size Concern with problems whose complexity may be described by exponential functions. Tractable problems.
First-Order Logic and Inductive Logic Programming.
Linear Program Set Cover. Given a universe U of n elements, a collection of subsets of U, S = {S 1,…, S k }, and a cost function c: S → Q +. Find a minimum.
NP-completeness Section 7.4 Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability.
CSCI-256 Data Structures & Algorithm Analysis Lecture Note: Some slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright © 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved. 29.
CS 461 – Nov. 30 Section 7.5 How to show a problem is NP-complete –Show it’s in NP. –Show that it corresponds to another problem already known to be NP-complete.
Presented by Dajiang Zhu 11/1/2011.  Introduction of Markov chains Definition One example  Two problems as examples 2-SAT Algorithm (simply introduce.
Heuristics for Efficient SAT Solving As implemented in GRASP, Chaff and GSAT.
NPC.
Liaoruo Wang and John E. Hopcroft Dept. of Computer Engineering & Computer Science, Cornell University In Proc. 7th Annual Conference on Theory and Applications.
Non-LP-Based Approximation Algorithms Fabrizio Grandoni IDSIA
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2 Review: Finding lower bound by problem transformation Problem X reduces to problem Y (X  Y ) iff X can be solved by.
Optimized SAT Encoding For Sudoku Puzzles Will Klieber and Gi-Hwon Kwon Sept 27, 2007 rev. 2 Changes from v1: Added a new slide after “A Better Encoding.
CSE 332: NP Completeness, Part II Richard Anderson Spring 2016.
Hard Problems Some problems are hard to solve.  No polynomial time algorithm is known.  E.g., NP-hard problems such as machine scheduling, bin packing,
Heuristics for Efficient SAT Solving As implemented in GRASP, Chaff and GSAT.
Theory of Computational Complexity Probability and Computing Chapter Hikaru Inada Iwama and Ito lab M1.
(xy)(yz)(xz)(zy)
First-Order Logic and Inductive Logic Programming
NP-Complete Problems.
Topic 3: Prob. Analysis Randomized Alg.
CSE 6408 Advanced Algorithms.
Switching Lemmas and Proof Complexity
The Satisfiability Problem
Presentation transcript:

Randomzied Unique k-SAT R. Paturi, P. Pudlak, M.E. Saks and F. Zane An Improved Exponential-time Algorithm for k-SAT Journal of the ACM, Vol 52, No. 3, pp , May 2005 Fenghui Zhang 2006, 11, 2

Introduction Unique k-SAT  Given a CNF formula F with at most one satisfying assignment, decide if F is satisfiable or not Main result to present:  For unique 3-SAT, the running time is O(1.307 n ), much better than the best known algorithm for general 3-SAT, which is O(1.324 n )

The algorithm Resolve all s bounded pairs Repeat T times  Let  be a random permutation of [1..n]  Let y be a random assignment to F  Let u be the result of applying y to F following the order in π – Modify (F, , y);  If u satisfies F, return u Return “no”

Resolve s bounded pair Two clause form a resolvable pair if they conflict on exactly one variable v, i.e., one of them contains v and the other contains  v. R(C 1,C 2 )=D 1  D 2, where D 1 and D 2 are obtained by remove variable from C 1 and C 2 If none of C 1,C 2, R(C 1,C 2 ) contains more than s literals, we add R(C 1,C 2 ) to F

Modify (F, , y) Take the next variable v from π  If the value of v can be decided, assign that value to v When there is a unit clause only involves v  Else v takes the value assigned in y Return the modified assignment

What are s, T? s is a large constant or a slowly increasing function of n T is the number of time we run the algorithm, in our unique 3-SAT case, it is O(1.307 n )

Analysis Suppose z is a satisfying assignment to F, for given y and , Modify (F, , y) returns z iff y and z agrees on all variables not forced by π, i.e., those not decidable For fixed π, the number of y that Modify (F, , y) will return z is 2 |Forced(G, , z)| The probability that the algorithm finds z is then

Analysis – cont. It is bounded by 2 -n+E[|Forced(F, , z)|] We say that a clause C is critical for a variable v and a truth assignment z if v is the only true literal variable in C v  C is in Forced(F, , z) iff in , v is after all other variables of C Hence E[|Forced(F, , z)|]=  v P(v,F,z) where P(v,F,z) is the probability that a random  actually put v as the last variable among the variables of a critical clause for (v, z)

Analysis – cont. Why do s-bounded resolvent?  Increase the number of critical clauses for a variable How does uniqueness help?  Suppose z=1 n is the unique truth assignment  Consider C 1 =x 1  x 2  x 3  x 4,001 n-2 is not a truth assignment, there is a clause not satisfied by it that Either resolvable with C 1 Or it is a second critical clause for x 1

Analysis – cont. P (v, F, z)>0.613 This is because we assume that F has at most one truth assignment, thus for any integer d between 1 and n, flip any d variables will give us a false assignment, hence we will have many critical clauses for each variable, hence the probability of  actually put v as the last in one of its critical clause increases. Detail skipped.

Analysis – cont. Hence the success probability of Modify (F, , y) is at least 2 -n+0.613n = n Hence if we let T=O(1.307 n ), i.e., repeat Modify for O(1.307 n ) many times, we will have a nontrivial chance of finding the truth assignment

The End Thank you very much Questions?