Skip to main content

Boosting Sequential Solver Portfolios: Knowledge Sharing and Accuracy Prediction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7997))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Sequential algorithm portfolios for satisfiability testing (SAT), such as SATzilla and 3S, have enjoyed much success in the last decade. By leveraging the differing strengths of individual SAT solvers, portfolios employing older solvers have often fared as well or better than newly designed ones, in several categories of the annual SAT Competitions and Races. We propose two simple yet powerful techniques to further boost the performance of sequential portfolios, namely, a generic way of knowledge sharing suitable for sequential SAT solver schedules which is commonly employed in parallel SAT solvers, and a meta-level guardian classifier for judging whether to switch the main solver suggested by the portfolio with a recourse action solver. With these additions, we show that the performance of the sequential portfolio solver 3S, which dominated other sequential categories but was ranked 10th in the application category of the 2011 SAT Competition, can be boosted significantly, bringing it just one instance short of matching the performance of the winning application track solver, while still outperforming all other solvers submitted to the crafted and random categories.

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.

    For the specific case of population-based algorithm portfolios, Peng et al. [11] have proposed sharing information through migration of individuals across populations.

  2. 2.

    We also tried labels that identify top performer (e.g., not more than \(x\,\%\) slower than the best solver, for various \(x\)), but obtained much worse results. The issue here is that it is more ambitious than necessary to predict which solver is best or close to best. Instead, we need to be able to distinguish solvers that are good enough from those that fail. That is, rather than aiming for speed, we optimize for solver robustness.

  3. 3.

    The source code of 3S can be obtained from http://www.satcompetition.org/

  4. 4.

    http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/

  5. 5.

    Note that the numbers do not add up to 300 since, with the classifier, we only consider instances that have not been solved yet by the pre-scheduler and can be solved by at least one of the solvers in our portfolio.

References

  1. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: 21st IJCAI, Pasadena, CA, pp. 399–404, July 2009

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biere, A.: Plingeling: solver description, SAT Race (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: STOC, pp. 151–158. ACM (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Algorithm portfolios. AI J. 126(1–2), 43–62 (2001)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. 11(1), 10–18 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamadi, Y., Sais, L.: ManySAT: a parallel SAT solver. JSAT 6, 245–262 (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Rice, J.R.: The algorithm selection problem. Adv. Comput. 15, 65–118 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kadioglu, S., Malitsky, Y., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Sellmann, M.: Algorithm selection and scheduling. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, pp. 454–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Leyton-Brown, K., Nudelman, E., Andrew, G., McFadden, J., Shoham, Y.: A portfolio approach to algorithm selection. In: IJCAI, pp. 1542–1543 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Malitsky, Y., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Sellmann, M.: Non-model-based algorithm portfolios for SAT. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 369–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Peng, F., Tang, K., Chen, G., Yao, X.: Population-based algorithm portfolios for numerical optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 14(5), 782–800 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Soos, M.: CryptoMiniSat 2.9.0. http://www.msoos.org/cryptominisat2 (2010)

  13. Sorensson, N., Een, N.: SatELite 1.0. http://minisat.se (2005)

  14. Sorensson, N., Een, N.: MiniSAT 2.2.0. http://minisat.se (2010)

  15. Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: SATzilla-07: the design and analysis of an algorithm portfolio for SAT. In: Bessière, C. (ed.) CP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4741, pp. 712–727. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: SATzilla: portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. JAIR 32(1), 565–606 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuri Malitsky .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Malitsky, Y., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Sellmann, M. (2013). Boosting Sequential Solver Portfolios: Knowledge Sharing and Accuracy Prediction. In: Nicosia, G., Pardalos, P. (eds) Learning and Intelligent Optimization. LION 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7997. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44973-4_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44973-4_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-44972-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-44973-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics