In computational complexity theory, the maximum satisfiability problem (MAX-SAT) is the problem of determining the maximum number of clauses, of a given Boolean formula in conjunctive normal form, that can be made true by an assignment of truth values to the variables of the formula. It is a generalization of the Boolean satisfiability problem, which asks whether there exists a truth assignment that makes all clauses true.
The conjunctive normal form formula
is not satisfiable: no matter which truth values are assigned to its two variables, at least one of its four clauses will be false. However, it is possible to assign truth values in such a way as to make three out of four clauses true; indeed, every truth assignment will do this. Therefore, if this formula is given as an instance of the MAX-SAT problem, the solution to the problem is the number three.
The MAX-SAT problem is OptP-complete, [1] and thus NP-hard, since its solution easily leads to the solution of the boolean satisfiability problem, which is NP-complete.
It is also difficult to find an approximate solution of the problem, that satisfies a number of clauses within a guaranteed approximation ratio of the optimal solution. More precisely, the problem is APX-complete, and thus does not admit a polynomial-time approximation scheme unless P = NP. [2] [3] [4]
More generally, one can define a weighted version of MAX-SAT as follows: given a conjunctive normal form formula with non-negative weights assigned to each clause, find truth values for its variables that maximize the combined weight of the satisfied clauses. The MAX-SAT problem is an instance of weighted MAX-SAT where all weights are 1. [5] [6] [7]
Randomly assigning each variable to be true with probability 1/2 gives an expected 2-approximation. More precisely, if each clause has at least k variables, then this yields a (1 − 2−k)-approximation. [8] This algorithm can be derandomized using the method of conditional probabilities. [9]
MAX-SAT can also be expressed using an integer linear program (ILP). Fix a conjunctive normal form formula F with variables x1, x2, ..., xn, and let C denote the clauses of F. For each clause c in C, let S+c and S−c denote the sets of variables which are not negated in c, and those that are negated in c, respectively. The variables yx of the ILP will correspond to the variables of the formula F, whereas the variables zc will correspond to the clauses. The ILP is as follows:
maximize | (maximize the weight of the satisfied clauses) | ||
subject to | for all | (clause is true iff it has a true, non-negated variable or a false, negated one) | |
for all . | (every clause is either satisfied or not) | ||
for all . | (every variable is either true or false) |
The above program can be relaxed to the following linear program L:
maximize | (maximize the weight of the satisfied clauses) | ||
subject to | for all | (clause is true iff it has a true, non-negated variable or a false, negated one) | |
for all . | |||
for all . |
The following algorithm using that relaxation is an expected (1-1/e)-approximation: [10]
This algorithm can also be derandomized using the method of conditional probabilities.
The 1/2-approximation algorithm does better when clauses are large whereas the (1-1/e)-approximation does better when clauses are small. They can be combined as follows:
This is a deterministic factor (3/4)-approximation. [11]
On the formula
where , the (1-1/e)-approximation will set each variable to True with probability 1/2, and so will behave identically to the 1/2-approximation. Assuming that the assignment of x is chosen first during derandomization, the derandomized algorithms will pick a solution with total weight , whereas the optimal solution has weight . [12]
The state-of-the-art algorithm is due to Avidor, Berkovitch and Zwick, [13] [14] and its approximation ratio is 0.7968. They also give another algorithm whose approximation ratio is conjectured to be 0.8353.
Many exact solvers for MAX-SAT have been developed during recent years, and many of them were presented in the well-known conference on the boolean satisfiability problem and related problems, the SAT Conference. In 2006 the SAT Conference hosted the first MAX-SAT evaluation comparing performance of practical solvers for MAX-SAT, as it has done in the past for the pseudo-boolean satisfiability problem and the quantified boolean formula problem. Because of its NP-hardness, large-size MAX-SAT instances cannot in general be solved exactly, and one must often resort to approximation algorithms and heuristics [15]
There are several solvers submitted to the last Max-SAT Evaluations:
MAX-SAT is one of the optimization extensions of the boolean satisfiability problem, which is the problem of determining whether the variables of a given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. If the clauses are restricted to have at most 2 literals, as in 2-satisfiability, we get the MAX-2SAT problem. If they are restricted to at most 3 literals per clause, as in 3-satisfiability, we get the MAX-3SAT problem.
There are many problems related to the satisfiability of conjunctive normal form Boolean formulas.
In logic and computer science, the Boolean satisfiability problem (sometimes called propositional satisfiability problem and abbreviated SATISFIABILITY, SAT or B-SAT) is the problem of determining if there exists an interpretation that satisfies a given Boolean formula. In other words, it asks whether the variables of a given Boolean formula can be consistently replaced by the values TRUE or FALSE in such a way that the formula evaluates to TRUE. If this is the case, the formula is called satisfiable. On the other hand, if no such assignment exists, the function expressed by the formula is FALSE for all possible variable assignments and the formula is unsatisfiable. For example, the formula "a AND NOT b" is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = FALSE, which make (a AND NOT b) = TRUE. In contrast, "a AND NOT a" is unsatisfiable.
The #P-complete problems form a complexity class in computational complexity theory. The problems in this complexity class are defined by having the following two properties:
In Boolean logic, a formula is in conjunctive normal form (CNF) or clausal normal form if it is a conjunction of one or more clauses, where a clause is a disjunction of literals; otherwise put, it is a product of sums or an AND of ORs. As a canonical normal form, it is useful in automated theorem proving and circuit theory.
Constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) are mathematical questions defined as a set of objects whose state must satisfy a number of constraints or limitations. CSPs represent the entities in a problem as a homogeneous collection of finite constraints over variables, which is solved by constraint satisfaction methods. CSPs are the subject of research in both artificial intelligence and operations research, since the regularity in their formulation provides a common basis to analyze and solve problems of many seemingly unrelated families. CSPs often exhibit high complexity, requiring a combination of heuristics and combinatorial search methods to be solved in a reasonable time. Constraint programming (CP) is the field of research that specifically focuses on tackling these kinds of problems. Additionally, the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT), satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), mixed integer programming (MIP) and answer set programming (ASP) are all fields of research focusing on the resolution of particular forms of the constraint satisfaction problem.
In computer science, 2-satisfiability, 2-SAT or just 2SAT is a computational problem of assigning values to variables, each of which has two possible values, in order to satisfy a system of constraints on pairs of variables. It is a special case of the general Boolean satisfiability problem, which can involve constraints on more than two variables, and of constraint satisfaction problems, which can allow more than two choices for the value of each variable. But in contrast to those more general problems, which are NP-complete, 2-satisfiability can be solved in polynomial time.
In computational complexity theory, the Cook–Levin theorem, also known as Cook's theorem, states that the Boolean satisfiability problem is NP-complete. That is, it is in NP, and any problem in NP can be reduced in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine to the Boolean satisfiability problem.
In computational complexity theory, the class APX is the set of NP optimization problems that allow polynomial-time approximation algorithms with approximation ratio bounded by a constant. In simple terms, problems in this class have efficient algorithms that can find an answer within some fixed multiplicative factor of the optimal answer.
In computer science, GSAT and WalkSAT are local search algorithms to solve Boolean satisfiability problems.
The Valiant–Vazirani theorem is a theorem in computational complexity theory stating that if there is a polynomial time algorithm for Unambiguous-SAT, then NP = RP. It was proven by Leslie Valiant and Vijay Vazirani in their paper titled NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions published in 1986.
The Karloff–Zwick algorithm, in computational complexity theory, is a randomised approximation algorithm taking an instance of MAX-3SAT Boolean satisfiability problem as input. If the instance is satisfiable, then the expected weight of the assignment found is at least 7/8 of optimal. There is strong evidence that the algorithm achieves 7/8 of optimal even on unsatisfiable MAX-3SAT instances. Howard Karloff and Uri Zwick presented the algorithm in 1997.
MAX-3SAT is a problem in the computational complexity subfield of computer science. It generalises the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) which is a decision problem considered in complexity theory. It is defined as:
In mathematical logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.
In computational complexity theory, a gadget is a subunit of a problem instance that simulates the behavior of one of the fundamental units of a different computational problem. Gadgets are typically used to construct reductions from one computational problem to another, as part of proofs of NP-completeness or other types of computational hardness. The component design technique is a method for constructing reductions by using gadgets.
MAXEkSAT is a problem in computational complexity theory that is a maximization version of the Boolean satisfiability problem 3SAT. In MAXEkSAT, each clause has exactly k literals, each with distinct variables, and is in conjunctive normal form. These are called k-CNF formulas. The problem is to determine the maximum number of clauses that can be satisfied by a truth assignment to the variables in the clauses.
In computer science, the Sharp Satisfiability Problem is the problem of counting the number of interpretations that satisfy a given Boolean formula, introduced by Valiant in 1979. In other words, it asks in how many ways the variables of a given Boolean formula can be consistently replaced by the values TRUE or FALSE in such a way that the formula evaluates to TRUE. For example, the formula is satisfiable by three distinct boolean value assignments of the variables, namely, for any of the assignments, , and, we have
In theoretical computer science, the circuit satisfiability problem is the decision problem of determining whether a given Boolean circuit has an assignment of its inputs that makes the output true. In other words, it asks whether the inputs to a given Boolean circuit can be consistently set to 1 or 0 such that the circuit outputs 1. If that is the case, the circuit is called satisfiable. Otherwise, the circuit is called unsatisfiable. In the figure to the right, the left circuit can be satisfied by setting both inputs to be 1, but the right circuit is unsatisfiable.
In computer science, conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is an algorithm for solving the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT). Given a Boolean formula, the SAT problem asks for an assignment of variables so that the entire formula evaluates to true. The internal workings of CDCL SAT solvers were inspired by DPLL solvers. The main difference between CDCL and DPLL is that CDCL's backjumping is non-chronological.
In computational complexity theory, a branch of computer science, the Max/min CSP/Ones classification theorems state necessary and sufficient conditions that determine the complexity classes of problems about satisfying a subset S of boolean relations. They are similar to Schaefer's dichotomy theorem, which classifies the complexity of satisfying finite sets of relations; however, the Max/min CSP/Ones classification theorems give information about the complexity of approximating an optimal solution to a problem defined by S.
The Boolean satisfiability problem can be stated formally as: given a Boolean expression with variables, finding an assignment of the variables such that is true. It is seen as the canonical NP-complete problem. While no efficient algorithm is known to solve this problem in the general case, there are certain heuristics, informally called 'rules of thumb' in programming, that can usually help solve the problem reasonably efficiently.
In computer science, the planar 3-satisfiability problem (abbreviated PLANAR 3SAT or PL3SAT) is an extension of the classical Boolean 3-satisfiability problem to a planar incidence graph. In other words, it asks whether the variables of a given Boolean formula—whose incidence graph consisting of variables and clauses can be embedded on a plane—can be consistently replaced by the values TRUE or FALSE in such a way that the formula evaluates to TRUE. If this is the case, the formula is called satisfiable. On the other hand, if no such assignment exists, the function expressed by the formula is FALSE for all possible variable assignments and the formula is unsatisfiable. For example, the formula "a AND NOT b" is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = FALSE, which make (a AND NOT b) = TRUE. In contrast, "a AND NOT a" is unsatisfiable.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)