The implicit hitting set (IHS) approach offers a general framework for solving computationally hard combinatorial optimization problems declaratively. IHS iterates between a decision oracle used for extracting sources of inconsistency and an optimizer for computing so-called hitting sets (HSs) over the accumulated sources of inconsistency. While the decision oracle is language-specific, the optimizers is usually instantiated through integer programming. We explore alternative algorithmic techniques for hitting set optimization based on different ways of employing pseudo-Boolean (PB) reasoning as well as stochastic local search. We extensively evaluate the practical feasibility of the alternatives in particular in the context of pseudo-Boolean (0-1 IP) optimization as one of the most recent instantiations of IHS. Highlighting a trade-off between efficiency and reliability, while a commercial IP solver turns out to remain the most effective way to instantiate HS computations, it can cause correctness issues due to numerical instability; in fact, we show that exact HS computations instantiated via PB reasoning can be made competitive with a numerically exact IP solver. Furthermore, the use of PB reasoning as a basis for HS computations allows for obtaining certificates for the correctness of IHS computations, generally applicable to any IHS instantiation in which reasoning in the declarative language at hand can be captured in the PB-based proof format we employ.

We describe HitPBO 1.0, a from-scratch open-source C++ implementation of the implicit hitting set (IHS) approach to pseudo-Boolean optimization. Compared to earlier implementations, HitPBO adds a range of functionalities and search techniques, certificates, and support for various alternative solvers within IHS. We give an overview of the solver’s architecture and its functionalities.

Abstract Building on the progress in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving over the last decades, maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) has become a viable approach for solving -hard optimization problems. However, ensuring correctness of MaxSAT solvers has remained a considerable concern. For SAT, this is largely a solved problem thanks to the use of proof logging, meaning that solvers emit machine-verifiable proofs to certify correctness. However, for MaxSAT, proof logging solvers have started being developed only very recently. Moreover, these nascent efforts have only targeted the core solving process, ignoring the preprocessing phase where input problem instances can be substantially reformulated before being passed on to the solver proper. In this work, we demonstrate how pseudo-Boolean proof logging can be used to certify the correctness of a wide range of modern MaxSAT preprocessing techniques. By combining and extending the VeriPB and CakePB tools, we provide formally verified end-to-end proof checking that the input and preprocessed output MaxSAT problem instances have the same optimal value. An extensive evaluation on applied MaxSAT benchmarks shows that our approach is feasible in practice.

Maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT), employing propositional logic as the declarative language of choice, has turned into a viable approach to solving NP-hard optimization problems arising from artificial intelligence and other real-world settings. A key contributing factor to the success of MaxSAT is the rise of increasingly effective exact solvers that are based on iterative calls to a Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver. The three types of SAT-based MaxSAT solving approaches, each with its distinguishing features, implemented in current state-of-the-art MaxSAT solvers are the core-guided, the implicit hitting set (IHS), and the objective-bounding approaches. The objective-bounding approach is based on directly searching over the objective function range by iteratively querying a SAT solver if the MaxSAT instance at hand has a solution under different bounds on the objective. In contrast, both core-guided and IHS are so-called unsatisfiability-based approaches that employ a SAT solver as an unsatisfiable core extractor to determine sources of inconsistencies, but critically differ in how the found unsatisfiable cores are made use of towards finding a provably optimal solution. Furthermore, a variety of different algorithmic variants of the core-guided approach in particular have been proposed and implemented in solvers. It is well-acknowledged that each of the three approaches has its advantages and disadvantages, which is also witnessed by instance and problem-domain specific runtime performance differences (and at times similarities) of MaxSAT solvers implementing variants of the approaches. However, the questions of to what extent the approaches are fundamentally different and how the benefits of the individual methods could be combined in a single algorithmic approach are currently not fully understood. In this work, we approach these questions by developing UniMaxSAT, a general unifying algorithmic framework. Based on the recent notion of abstract cores, UniMaxSAT captures in general core-guided, IHS and objective-bounding computations. The framework offers a unified way of establishing quite generally the correctness of the current approaches. We illustrate this by formally showing that UniMaxSAT can simulate the computations of various algorithmic instantiations of the three types of MaxSAT solving approaches. Furthermore, UniMaxSAT can be instantiated in novel ways giving rise to new algorithmic variants of the approaches. We illustrate this aspect by developing a prototype implementation of an algorithmic variant for MaxSAT based on the framework.

Two of the most central algorithmic paradigms implemented in practical solvers for maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) and other related declarative paradigms for NP-hard combinatorial optimization are the core-guided (CG) and implicit hitting set (IHS) approaches. We develop a general unifying algorithmic framework, based on the recent notion of abstract cores, that captures both CG and IHS computations. The framework offers a unified way of establishing the correctness of variants of the approaches, and can be instantiated in novel ways giving rise to new algorithmic variants of the core-guided and IHS approaches. We illustrate the latter aspect by developing a prototype implementation of an algorithm variant for MaxSAT based on the framework.

Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) is a well-known optimization pro- blem, with several practical applications. The most widely known MAXS AT algorithms are ineffective at solving hard problems instances from practical application domains. Recent work proposed using efficient Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers for solving the MaxSAT problem, based on identifying and eliminating unsatisfiable subformulas. However, these algorithms do not scale in practice. This paper analyzes existing MaxSAT algorithms based on unsatisfiable subformula identification. Moreover, the paper proposes a number of key optimizations to these MaxSAT algorithms and a new alternative algorithm. The proposed optimizations and the new algorithm provide significant performance improvements on MaxSAT instances from practical applications. Moreover, the efficiency of the new generation of unsatisfiability-based MaxSAT solvers becomes effectively indexed to the ability of modern SAT solvers to proving unsatisfiability and identifying unsatisfiable subformulas.