Skip to main content

FindInstance boolean program is slow, but fast with BooleanConvert


FindInstance can be incredibly slow to solve a boolean program, but it can be significantly improved by using BooleanConvert to convert the constraints to "conjunctive normal form".


For example, here is a boolean program with some random constraints. My laptop can't solve it in 10 seconds.


vars = Array[x, 50];
SeedRandom[1234];
const = And @@ Table[Or[
Xor[RandomChoice[vars], RandomChoice[vars]],
Xor[RandomChoice[vars], RandomChoice[vars]]], 100];


TimeConstrained[FindInstance[const, vars, Booleans], 10, "Timeout!"]

(* Timeout! *)

Converting the constraints to "conjunctive normal form" helps FindInstance find a solution almost instantly:


AbsoluteTiming@FindInstance[ BooleanConvert[const,"CNF"], vars, Booleans ] // Short

(* {0.014715, {{x[1] -> False, x[2] -> False, <<46>>, x[49] -> False, x[50] -> False}}} *)

Wolfram's 4-color map-coloring example uses this trick; without BooleanConvert, it takes forever to run.



Does anyone know why this is so? I wish the FindInstance documentation would've mentioned this trick.


Related: 1, 2


Update: A colleague pointed out that "conjunctive normal form" has the appealing property that it allows short-circuiting, which allows the satisfiability solver to prune away large branches of the tree of candidate variable choices. For example,


BooleanConvert[Nand[x, y]~And~Xor[y, z], "CNF"]

converts the expression into the AND of a bunch of OR expressions:


(! x || ! y) && (! y || ! z) && (y || z)

When testing a candidate set of values for x,y,z, the solver can evaluate each OR expression in turn and stop as soon as it encounters one that evaluates to FALSE. For example, once it concludes that x=TRUE, y=TRUE makes the first OR clause FALSE, it can prune off the lower levels of the tree and doesn't need to try either value of z.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...