Theory and Applications of

Satisfiability Testing SAT 2020 23rd

International Conference Alghero Italy
July 3 10 2020 Proceedings Lecture
Notes in Computer Science 12178 Luca
Pulina (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/theory-and-applications-of-satisfiability-testing-sat-20
20-23rd-international-conference-alghero-italy-july-3-10-2020-proceedings-lecture-not
es-in-computer-science-12178-luca-pulina-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Computer Science Theory and Applications 15th

International Computer Science Symposium in Russia CSR
2020 Yekaterinburg Russia June 29 July 3 2020
Proceedings Henning Fernau
https://textbookfull.com/product/computer-science-theory-and-
applications-15th-international-computer-science-symposium-in-
russia-csr-2020-yekaterinburg-russia-
june-29-july-3-2020-proceedings-henning-fernau/

Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing SAT

2016 19th International Conference Bordeaux France July
5 8 2016 Proceedings 1st Edition Nadia Creignou

https://textbookfull.com/product/theory-and-applications-of-
satisfiability-testing-sat-2016-19th-international-conference-
bordeaux-france-july-5-8-2016-proceedings-1st-edition-nadia-
creignou/

Intelligent Computer Mathematics 13th International

Conference CICM 2020 Bertinoro Italy July 26 31 2020
Proceedings Christoph Benzmüller

https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-computer-
mathematics-13th-international-conference-cicm-2020-bertinoro-
italy-july-26-31-2020-proceedings-christoph-benzmuller/

Beyond the Horizon of Computability 16th Conference on

Computability in Europe CiE 2020 Fisciano Italy June 29
July 3 2020 Proceedings Marcella Anselmo

https://textbookfull.com/product/beyond-the-horizon-of-
computability-16th-conference-on-computability-in-europe-
cie-2020-fisciano-italy-june-29-july-3-2020-proceedings-marcella-
Computational Science and Its Applications ICCSA 2020
20th International Conference Cagliari Italy July 1 4
2020 Proceedings Part VII Osvaldo Gervasi

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-science-and-its-
applications-iccsa-2020-20th-international-conference-cagliari-
italy-july-1-4-2020-proceedings-part-vii-osvaldo-gervasi/

Computational Science and Its Applications ICCSA 2020

20th International Conference Cagliari Italy July 1 4
2020 Proceedings Part VI Osvaldo Gervasi

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-science-and-its-
applications-iccsa-2020-20th-international-conference-cagliari-
italy-july-1-4-2020-proceedings-part-vi-osvaldo-gervasi/

Mathematical Optimization Theory and Operations

Research 19th International Conference MOTOR 2020
Novosibirsk Russia July 6 10 2020 Proceedings Alexander
Kononov
https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-optimization-
theory-and-operations-research-19th-international-conference-
motor-2020-novosibirsk-russia-july-6-10-2020-proceedings-
alexander-kononov/

Reversible Computation 12th International Conference RC

2020 Oslo Norway July 9 10 2020 Proceedings Ivan Lanese

https://textbookfull.com/product/reversible-computation-12th-
international-conference-rc-2020-oslo-norway-
july-9-10-2020-proceedings-ivan-lanese/

Neural Computing for Advanced Applications First

International Conference NCAA 2020 Shenzhen China July
3 5 2020 Proceedings Haijun Zhang

https://textbookfull.com/product/neural-computing-for-advanced-
applications-first-international-conference-ncaa-2020-shenzhen-
china-july-3-5-2020-proceedings-haijun-zhang/
 Luca Pulina
Martina Seidl (Eds.)

Theory and Applications

LNCS 12178

of Satisfiability Testing –
SAT 2020
23rd International Conference
Alghero, Italy, July 3-10, 2020
Proceedings
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12178

Founding Editors
Gerhard Goos
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Juris Hartmanis
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Editorial Board Members

Elisa Bertino
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Wen Gao
Peking University, Beijing, China
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Gerhard Woeginger
RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
Moti Yung
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7407
Luca Pulina Martina Seidl (Eds.)
•

Theory and Applications

of Satisfiability Testing –
SAT 2020
23rd International Conference
Alghero, Italy, July 3–10, 2020
Proceedings

123
Editors
Luca Pulina Martina Seidl
University of Sassari Johannes Kepler University of Linz
Sassari, Italy Linz, Austria

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
ISBN 978-3-030-51824-0 ISBN 978-3-030-51825-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51825-7
LNCS Sublibrary: SL1 – Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This volume contains the papers presented at the 23rd International Conference on
Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2020) held during July 3–10,
2020. Originally planned to be held in Alghero, Italy, it was not possible to have an
onsite event due to of COVID-19. Instead SAT went online and was organized as a
virtual event.
SAT is the premier annual meeting for researchers focusing on the theory and
applications of the propositional satisfiability problem, broadly construed. Aside from
plain propositional satisfiability, the scope of the meeting includes Boolean opti-
mization, including MaxSAT and pseudo-Boolean (PB) constraints, quantified Boolean
formulas (QBF), satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), and constraint programming
(CP) for problems with clear connections to Boolean reasoning. Many hard combi-
natorial problems can be tackled using SAT-based techniques, including problems that
arise in formal verification, artificial intelligence, operations research, computational
biology, cryptology, data mining, machine learning, mathematics, etc. Indeed, the
theoretical and practical advances in SAT research over the past 25 years have con-
tributed to making SAT technology an indispensable tool in a variety of domains. SAT
2020 welcomed scientific contributions addressing different aspects of SAT interpreted
in a broad sense, including (but not restricted to) theoretical advances (such as exact
algorithms, proof complexity, and other complexity issues), practical search algo-
rithms, knowledge compilation, implementation-level details of SAT solvers and
SAT-based systems, problem encodings and reformulations, applications (including
both novel application domains and improvements to existing approaches), as well as
case studies and reports on findings based on rigorous experimentation.
SAT 2020 received 69 submissions, comprising 52 long papers, 11 short papers, and
6 tool papers. Each submission was reviewed by at least three Program Committee
members. The reviewing process included an author response period, during which the
authors of the submitted papers were given the opportunity to respond to the initial
reviews for their submissions. To reach a final decision, a Program Committee dis-
cussion period followed the author response period. External reviewers supporting the
Program Committee were also invited to participate directly in the discussion for the
papers they reviewed. This year, most submissions received a meta-review, summa-
rizing the discussion that occurred after the author response and an explanation of the
final recommendation. In the end, the committee decided to accept a total of 36 papers;
25 long, 9 short, and 2 tool papers.
In addition to presentations on the accepted papers, the scientific program of SAT
announced two invited talks by:
– Georg Gottlob, Oxford University, UK, and TU Wien, Austria
– Aaarti Gupta, Princeton University, USA
vi Preface

SAT 2020 hosted various associated events coordinated by our workshop and
competition chair Florian Lonsing. This year, three workshops were affiliated with
SAT.
– Pragmatics of SAT Workshop, organized by Matti Järvisalo and Daniel Le Berre
– QBF Workshop, organized by Hubie Chen and Friedrich Slivovsky
– Model Counting Workshop, organized by Johannes Fichte and Markus Hecher
Also the workshops were organized as virtual events before or after the main
conference. The results of the following four competitive events were announced at
SAT:
– SAT Competition 2020, organized by Thomas Balyo, Marijn Heule, Markus Iser,
Matti Järvisalo, and Martin Suda
– MaxSAT Evaluation 2020, organized by Fahiem Bacchus, Jeremias Berg, Matti
Järvisalo, and Ruben Martins
– QBFEVAL 2020, organized by Luca Pulina, Martina Seidl, and Ankit Shukla
– Model Counting 2020, organized by Markus Hecher and Johannes K. Fichte
Last, but not least, we thank everyone who contributed to making SAT 2020 a
success. In particular, we thank our workshop chair Florian Lonsing and our publi-
cation chair Laura Pandolfo. We are indebted to the Program Committee members and
the external reviewers, who dedicated their time to review and evaluate the submissions
to the conference. We thank the authors of all submitted papers for their contributions,
the SAT association for their guidance and support in organizing the conference, and
the EasyChair conference management system for facilitating the submission and
selection of papers as well as the assembly of these proceedings. Last but not least we
thank Springer for supporting the Best Paper Awards.

May 2020 Luca Pulina

Martina Seidl
 Organization

Program Committee
Fahiem Bacchus University of Toronto, Canada
Olaf Beyersdorff Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany
Armin Biere Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
Nikolaj Bjorner Microsoft, USA
Maria Luisa Bonet Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain
Sam Buss University of California, San Diego, USA
Florent Capelli Université de Lille, France
Pascal Fontaine Université de Liège, Belgium
Marijn Heule Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Alexey Ignatiev Monash University, Australia
Mikolas Janota INESC-ID/IST, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Jie-Hong Roland Jiang National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Jan Johannsen Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany
Matti Järvisalo University of Helsinki, Finland
Benjamin Kiesl CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security,
Germany
Oliver Kullmann Swansea University, UK
Daniel Le Berre CNRS, Université d’Artois, France
Florian Lonsing Stanford University, USA
Ines Lynce INESC-ID/IST, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Vasco Manquinho INESC-ID/IST, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Felip Manyà IIIA-CSIC, Spain
Joao Marques-Silva ANITI, France
Ruben Martins Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Kuldeep S. Meel National University of Singapore, Singapore
Alexander Nadel Intel, Israel
Aina Niemetz Stanford University, USA
Jakob Nordstrom University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and Lund
University, Sweden
Luca Pulina University of Sassari, Italy
Markus N. Rabe Google, USA
Roberto Sebastiani University of Trento, Italy
Martina Seidl Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
Natasha Sharygina Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland
Laurent Simon Labri, Bordeaux Institute of Technology, France
Friedrich Slivovsky Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Stefan Szeider Vienna University of Technology, Austria
viii Organization

Ralf Wimmer Concept Engineering GmbH,

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
Christoph M. Wintersteiger Microsoft, UK

Additional Reviewers

Abraham, Erika Korhonen, Tuukka

Asadi, Sepideh Levy, Jordi
Bendík, Jaroslav Marescotti, Matteo
Berg, Jeremias Mengel, Stefan
Blinkhorn, Joshua Morgado, Antonio
Brown, Christopher Ordyniak, Sebastian
Böhm, Benjamin Otoni, Rodrigo
Carbonnel, Clément Paxian, Tobias
Chen, Hubie Peitl, Tomáš
Devriendt, Jo Preiner, Mathias
Dodaro, Carmine Razgon, Igor
England, Matthew Rebola Pardo, Adrian
Fleury, Mathias Risse, Kilian
Franzén, Anders Scheder, Dominik
Gaspers, Serge Semenov, Alexander
Ge-Ernst, Aile Sherratt, David
Gebser, Martin Soos, Mate
Gocht, Stephan Strozecki, Yann
Hendrian, Diptarama Torán, Jacobo
Hermann, Miki Wallon, Romain
Hyvärinen, Antti Winterer, Felix
Kaufmann, Daniela Zaikin, Oleg
Kochemazov, Stepan Zamir, Or
Kokkala, Janne I. Zunino, Roberto
 Contents

Sorting Parity Encodings by Reusing Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Leroy Chew and Marijn J. H. Heule

Community and LBD-Based Clause Sharing Policy for Parallel

SAT Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Vincent Vallade, Ludovic Le Frioux, Souheib Baarir, Julien Sopena,
Vijay Ganesh, and Fabrice Kordon

Clause Size Reduction with all-UIP Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Nick Feng and Fahiem Bacchus

Trail Saving on Backtrack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Randy Hickey and Fahiem Bacchus

Four Flavors of Entailment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Sibylle Möhle, Roberto Sebastiani, and Armin Biere

Designing New Phase Selection Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Arijit Shaw and Kuldeep S. Meel

On the Effect of Learned Clauses on Stochastic Local Search. . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Jan-Hendrik Lorenz and Florian Wörz

SAT Heritage: A Community-Driven Effort for Archiving,

Building and Running More Than Thousand SAT Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Gilles Audemard, Loïc Paulevé, and Laurent Simon

Distributed Cube and Conquer with Paracooba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Maximilian Heisinger, Mathias Fleury, and Armin Biere

Reproducible Efficient Parallel SAT Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Hidetomo Nabeshima and Katsumi Inoue

Improving Implementation of SAT Competitions 2017–2019 Winners . . . . . . 139

Stepan Kochemazov

On CDCL-Based Proof Systems with the Ordered Decision Strategy . . . . . . . 149

Nathan Mull, Shuo Pang, and Alexander Razborov

Equivalence Between Systems Stronger Than Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Maria Luisa Bonet and Jordi Levy
x Contents

Simplified and Improved Separations Between Regular and General

Resolution by Lifting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Marc Vinyals, Jan Elffers, Jan Johannsen, and Jakob Nordström

Mycielski Graphs and PR Proofs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Emre Yolcu, Xinyu Wu, and Marijn J. H. Heule

Towards a Better Understanding of (Partial Weighted) MaxSAT

Proof Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Javier Larrosa and Emma Rollon

Towards a Complexity-Theoretic Understanding of Restarts

in SAT Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Chunxiao Li, Noah Fleming, Marc Vinyals, Toniann Pitassi,
and Vijay Ganesh

On the Sparsity of XORs in Approximate Model Counting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Durgesh Agrawal, Bhavishya, and Kuldeep S. Meel

A Faster Algorithm for Propositional Model Counting Parameterized

by Incidence Treewidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Friedrich Slivovsky and Stefan Szeider

Abstract Cores in Implicit Hitting Set MaxSat Solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Jeremias Berg, Fahiem Bacchus, and Alex Poole

MaxSAT Resolution and Subcube Sums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Yuval Filmus, Meena Mahajan, Gaurav Sood, and Marc Vinyals

A Lower Bound on DNNF Encodings of Pseudo-Boolean Constraints . . . . . . 312

Alexis de Colnet

On Weakening Strategies for PB Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

Daniel Le Berre, Pierre Marquis, and Romain Wallon

Reasoning About Strong Inconsistency in ASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

Carlos Mencía and Joao Marques-Silva

Taming High Treewidth with Abstraction, Nested Dynamic Programming,

and Database Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Markus Hecher, Patrick Thier, and Stefan Woltran

Reducing Bit-Vector Polynomials to SAT Using Gröbner Bases . . . . . . . . . . 361

Thomas Seed, Andy King, and Neil Evans

Speeding up Quantified Bit-Vector SMT Solvers by Bit-Width Reductions

and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Martin Jonáš and Jan Strejček
 Contents xi

Strong (D)QBF Dependency Schemes via Tautology-Free

Resolution Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Olaf Beyersdorff, Joshua Blinkhorn, and Tomáš Peitl

Short Q-Resolution Proofs with Homomorphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412

Ankit Shukla, Friedrich Slivovsky, and Stefan Szeider

Multi-linear Strategy Extraction for QBF Expansion Proofs

via Local Soundness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Matthias Schlaipfer, Friedrich Slivovsky, Georg Weissenbacher,
and Florian Zuleger

Positional Games and QBF: The Corrective Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

Valentin Mayer-Eichberger and Abdallah Saffidine

Matrix Multiplication: Verifying Strong Uniquely Solvable Puzzles . . . . . . . . 464

Matthew Anderson, Zongliang Ji, and Anthony Yang Xu

Satisfiability Solving Meets Evolutionary Optimisation in Designing

Approximate Circuits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Milan Češka, Jiří Matyáš, Vojtech Mrazek, and Tomáš Vojnar

SAT Solving with Fragmented Hamiltonian Path Constraints

for Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
Rüdiger Ehlers, Kai Treutler, and Volker Wesling

SAT-Based Encodings for Optimal Decision Trees with Explicit Paths . . . . . 501
Mikoláš Janota and António Morgado

Incremental Encoding of Pseudo-Boolean Goal Functions

Based on Comparator Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
Michał Karpiński and Marek Piotrów

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

 Sorting Parity Encodings by Reusing Variables

Leroy Chew(B) and Marijn J. H. Heule

Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

lchew@andrew.cmu.edu

Abstract. Parity reasoning is challenging for CDCL solvers: Refuting

a formula consisting of two contradictory, differently ordered parity con-
straints of modest size is hard. Two alternative methods can solve these
reordered parity formulas efficiently: binary decision diagrams and Gaus-
sian Elimination (which requires detection of the parity constraints). Yet,
implementations of these techniques either lack support of proof logging
or introduce many extension variables.
The compact, commonly-used encoding of parity constraints uses Tseitin
variables. We present a technique for short clausal proofs that exploits
these Tseitin variables to reorder the constraints within the DRAT sys-
tem. The size of our refutations of reordered parity formulas is O(n log n).

1 Introduction
Modern SAT solving technology is based on Conflict Driven Clause Learning
(CDCL) [12]. The resolution proof system [16] has a one-to-one correspon-
dence [15] with CDCL solving. In practice, however, the preprocessing techniques
used in modern solvers go beyond what can be succinctly represented in a res-
olution proof. As a consequence, when we need to present verifiable certificates
of unsatisfiable instances, resolution is not always sufficient. Extended Resolution
(ER) [20] is a strong proof system that can polynomially simulate CDCL and many
other techniques. However, ER is not necessarily the most useful system in prac-
tice, as we also want to minimise the degree of the polynomial simulation.
The DRAT proof system [7] is polynomially equivalent to ER [8]. Yet most
practitioners favour DRAT due to its ability to straightforwardly simulate known
preprocessing and inprocessing techniques. DRAT works by allowing inference
to go beyond preserving models and instead preserves only satisfiability.
In this paper, we demonstrate DRAT’s strengths on a particular kind of un-
satisfiable instances that involve parity constraints. Formulas with parity con-
straints have been benchmarks for SAT for decades. The Dubois family encodes
the refutation of two contradictory parity constraints over the same variables
using the same variable ordering. Urquhart formulas [21] encode a modulo two
sum of the degree of each vertex of a graph, the unsatisfiability comes from
an assertion that this sum is odd, a violation of the Handshake Lemma. The
Parity family from Crawford and Kearns [3] takes multiple parity instances on
a set of variables and combines them together. For these problems, practical
solutions have been studied using Gaussian elimination, equivalence reasoning,
binary decision diagrams and other approaches [5,6,9–11,13,18,19,22].
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
L. Pulina and M. Seidl (Eds.): SAT 2020, LNCS 12178, pp. 1–10, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51825-7_1
2 L. Chew and M.J.H. Heule

Extracting checkable proofs in a universal format has been another mat-

ter entirely. While it is believed that polynomial size circuitry exists to solve
these problems, actually turning them into proofs could mean they may only
be “short” in a theoretical polynomial-size sense rather than a practical one.
Constructing a DRAT proof of parity reasoning has been investigated theoreti-
cally [14], but no implementation exists to actually produce them nor is it clear
whether the size is still reasonable to be useful in practice.
There has been some investigation into looking at DRAT without the use
of extension variables. DRAT− , which is DRAT without extension variables, is
somewhere in between resolution and ER in terms of power. Several simulation
results for DRAT− [2], show that it is a powerful system even without the sim-
ulation of ER. A key simulation technique was the elimination and reuse of a
variable, which we use to find short DRAT− proofs of a hard parity formula.
The structure of parity constraints can be manipulated by reusing variables
and we exploit the associativity and commutativity of the parity function. We
demonstrate this on formulas similar to the Dubois family except the variables
now appear in a random order in one parity constraint. We show how to obtain
DRAT proofs of size O(n log n) without using additional variables. Our method
can also be used to produce ER proofs of similar size with new variables.

2 Preliminaries

In propositional logic a literal is a variable x or its negation x, a clause is a

disjunction of literals and a Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) is conjunction
of clauses. A unit clause is a clause containing a single literal. We denote the
negation of literal l as l (or ¬l). The variable corresponding to literal l is var(l).
If C is a clause, then C is the conjunction of the negation of the literals in C
each a unit clause. In this paper, we treat clauses/formulas as unordered and
not containing more than one copy of each literal/clause respectively.
Unit propagation simplifies a conjunctive normal form F by building a partial
assignment and applying it to F . It builds the assignment by satisfying any literal
that appears in a unit clause. Doing so may negate opposite literals in other
clauses and result in them effectively being removed from that clause. In this
way, unit propagation can create more unit clauses and can keep on propagating
until no more unit clauses remain or the empty clause is reached. We denote
that the empty clause can be derived by unit propagation applied to CNF F
by F 1 ⊥. Since unit propagation is an incomplete but sound form of logical
inference this is a sufficient condition to show that F is a logical contradiction.

The DRAT proof system. Below we define the rules of the DRAT proof sys-
tem. Each rule modifies a formula by either adding or removing a clause while
preserving satisfiability or unsatisfiability, respectively.

Definition 1 (Asymmetric Tautology (AT) [7]). Let F be a CNF formula.

A clause C is an asymmetric tautology w.r.t. F if and only if F ∧ C 1 ⊥.
 Sorting Parity Encodings by Reusing Variables 3

Asymmetric tautologies are also known as RUP (reverse unit propagation)

clauses. The rules ATA and ATE allow us to add and eliminate AT clauses. ATA
steps can simulate resolution steps and weakening steps.
F (ATA: C is AT w.r.t. F ) F ∧ C (ATE: C is AT w.r.t. F )
F ∧C F
Definition 2 (Resolution Asymmetric Tautology (RAT) [7]). Let F be a
CNF formula. A clause C is a resolution asymmetry tautology w.r.t. F if and
only if there exists a literal l ∈ C such that for every clause l ∨ D ∈ F it holds
that F ∧ D ∧ C 1 ⊥.

The rules RATA and RATE allow us to add and eliminate RAT clauses.
RATA can be used to add new variables that neither occur in F or anywhere
else. This can be used to simulate extension steps in ER.
F F ∧ C (RATE: C is RAT w.r.t. F )
(RATA: C is RAT w.r.t. F )
F ∧C F

3 A parity contradiction based on random orderings

In this section we will detail the main family of formulas investigated in this
work. These formulas will be contradictions expressing both the parity and non-
parity on a set of variables.
We define the parity of propositional literals a, b, c as follows

xor(a, b, c) := (a ∨ b ∨ c) ∧ (a ∨ b ∨ c) ∧ (a ∨ b ∨ c) ∧ (a ∨ b ∨ c)
Let X = {x1 , . . . , xn }, and let σ be a bijection between literals on X, that
preserves negation (σ(¬l) = ¬σ(l)). Let e denote the identity permutation on
the literals of X. Let T = {t1 , . . . , tn−3 }. We define Parity(X, T, σ) as

n−4

xor(σ(x1 ), σ(x2 ), t1 ) ∧ xor(tj , σ(xj+2 ), tj+1 ) ∧ xor(tn−3 , σ(xn−1 ), σ(xn ))
j=1

This formula is satisfiable if and only if the total parity of {σ(xi ) | xi ∈

X} is 1. The T variables act as Tseitin variables and whenever the formula is
satisfied ti+1 is the sum modulo two of σ(x1 ), . . . , σ(xi+2 ). The final clauses,
xor(tn−3 , σ(xn−1 ), σ(xn )) thus are satisfied when the sum of tn−3 , σ(xn−1 ) and
σ(xn ) is 1 mod 2. Suppose we pick σ so that there is some i ∈ [n] such that
σ(xj ) is a negative literal if and only if j = i. Let T  = {t 1 , . . . , t n−3 } be
another set of Tseitin variables. Parity(X, T, σ) ∧ Parity(X, T  , e) is false as it
states the parity of X is true but also states it false. However the permutation
σ obfuscates the similarities between the two Parity parts of the formula.
Were σ(xj ) = xj for all j = i and σ(xi ) = −xi then these formulas would be
equivalent to the Dubois formulas and a linear proof could be made by induc-
tively deriving clauses that express t j = tj for j < i − 1 and then t j = tj for
j ≥ i − 1. This will always allow us to derive a contradiction. While a linear
4 L. Chew and M.J.H. Heule

ATA RATE RATA ATE

q∨a∨b∨c d p∨a∨b p∨c∨b d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨a∨b p∨c∨b d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨a∨b p∨c∨b d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨a∨b p∨c∨b d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨q∨c p∨q∨a d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨q∨c p∨q∨a d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨q∨c p∨q∨a d q∨a∨b∨c
q∨a∨b∨c d p∨q∨c p∨q∨a d q∨a∨b∨c

Fig. 1. DRAT steps required for Lemma 1, d denotes a deletion step.

resolution proof is known for the Dubois, it is unknown what the size of the
shortest resolution proof of Parity(X, T, σ) ∧ Parity(X, T  , e) for a random σ.
While the Dubois family are a special case of these formulas, these formulas are
in turn a special case of the Tseitin graph formulas [20] where the vertex degree
is always 3.
When σ = e we still have a contradiction due to the commutativity of the par-
ity function. However such a straightforward DRAT proof becomes obstructed
by the disarranged ordering. This permutation also makes these formulas hard
for CDCL solvers (see Section 4). We will show that Parity(X, T  , e) can be
efficiently reordered. Afterwards a short resolution proof arises. This brings us
to our main theoretical result.

Theorem 1. Let X = {x1 , . . . , xn }, T = {t1 , . . . , tn }, T  = {t1 , . . . , tn } and let

σ be a bijection between literals on X, that preserves negation. Suppose there is
some i ∈ [n] such that σ(xj ) is a negative literal if and only if j = i. The 3-CNF
Parity(X, T, σ) ∧ Parity(X, T  , e) has a proof of size O(n log n).

In the remainder of this section we will prove Theorem 1. We begin with

an essential lemma that uses the DRAT rules to perform elementary adjacent
swaps on literals in xor constraints.

Lemma 1. Suppose we have a CNF F and two sets of xor clauses xor(a, b, p)
and xor(p, c, q), where variable p appears nowhere in F . We can infer

F ∧ xor(a, b, p) ∧ xor(p, c, q)
F ∧ xor(b, c, p) ∧ xor(p, a, q)
in a constant number of DRAT steps without adding new variables.

Proof. The idea is to eliminate variable p so that we define q directly as the

parity of a, b, c using eight “ternary xor” clauses. Each of these clauses can
 Sorting Parity Encodings by Reusing Variables 5

be added directly via ATA. We can now remove (using RATE) all clauses that
contain variable p. These steps are equivalent to performing Davis-Putnam (DP)
resolution [4] on variable p.
What we are left with is that two levels of parity have been replaced with
one level of ternary parity. We can reverse the above steps to get us two levels of
parity yet again, but we can swap a and c (since they appear symmetrically in
our “ternary xor” clauses). We re-use the eliminated p to now mean the xor of b
and c using RATA. Finally, we remove the “ternary xor” clauses using ATE.
Note that here elimination is required only because we want to re-use the
variable p. We can also show a similar step in ER without the elimination steps,
introducing the “ternary xor” clauses immediately with resolution. We can in-
troduce the four xor(p , b, c) extension clauses for p , and by resolving them with
the ternary clauses on b we get eight intermediate clauses which can resolve with
each other on c to get the remaining four xor(p , a, q) clauses. Without ATA and
RATA steps, this process involves 50% more addition steps, but since it contains
no deletion steps we have 25% fewer steps in total. ER proofs allow us to keep
lemmas without deletion so where we have more than two parity constraints we
may wish to reuse derived parity clauses. On the other hand DRAT− keeps the
number of variables and clauses fixed when searching when we do not know the
structure of formula and can stop the search size from growing.

Sorting the input literals. We can switch the two parity inputs using Lemma 1
in a constant number of proof steps. Furthermore the technique in DRAT does
not require any additional extension variables and since the number of addition
and deletion steps in Lemma 1 is the same, the working CNF does not change
in size. Sorting using adjacent variables requires Θ(n2 ) swaps.
Let us ignore the variables xn−1 and xn and the clauses that include them
n−4
as special cases. We can take xor(x1 , x2 , t1 ) ∧ i=1 xor(ti , xi+2 , ti+1 ) as the def-
inition of tn−3 in circuit form, using the X variables as input gates and the ti
variables as xor (⊕) gates. This circuit is a tree with linear depth. the distance
between two input nodes is linear in the worst-case, which is why we get Ω(n2 )
many swaps. However Lemma 1 allows us even more flexibility, we can not only
rearrange the input variables but the Tseitin variables.
For example if we have xor(ti , xi+2 , ti+1 ) and xor(ti−1 , xi+1 , ti ) clauses we can
eliminate ti so that ti+1 is defined as the parity of xi+1 , xi+2 , and ti−1 . However

x6
3 x6
x5 3
2 x5
x4
1 2 1
x3
x1 x2 x4 x3 x1 x2

Fig. 2. Swapping the position of an internal node to balance the tree.

6 L. Chew and M.J.H. Heule

7 7

7 3 4 3 x2

3 4 1 x2 5 6 1 4

1 2 5 6 x1 2 x5 x6 x7 x8 x1 2 5 6

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x3 x4 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8

7 7 7

3 x2 3 1 3 1

1 4 x2 4 x1 2 5 4 x1 2

x1 2 5 6 5 6 x3 x4 x5 x6 x2 6 x3 x4

x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x5 x6 x7 x8 x7 x8

Fig. 3. Moving two literals next to each other. Top: moving x2 up to the source of the
tree. Bottom: moving x2 down to swap with x7

we can now redefine ti as the xor of xi+1 , xi+2 (using xor(ti , xi+1 , xi+2 )) and ti+1
as the xor of ti and ti−1 (using xor(ti+1 , ti , ti−1 )). See Figure 2 for an example
and notice how we change the topology of the tree.
In n2 many swaps we can change our linear depth tree into a tree that
consists of a two linear branches of depth at most  n2  joined at the top by an
xor. This means that using a divide and conquer approach, we can turn this tree
in a balanced binary tree of log2 n depth in O(n log n) many steps.
The purpose of a log depth tree structure is to allow leaf-to-leaf swapping
from both ends of the the tree without having to do a linear number of swaps,
in fact we can do arbitrary leaf swaps in O(log n) many individual steps. This
is done by pushing a variable up its branch to the source node of the tree and
pushing it back down another branch to its destination as in Figure 3. Then we
can reverse the steps with the variable being swapped out. The resulting tree
even retains the position of all other nodes.
Note that we also have the variables xn and xn−1 that only appear in the
clauses of xor(tn−3 , xn−1 , xn ). Suppose the two children of tn−3 in its definition
circuit are a and b, in other words xor(tn−3 , a, b) are the clauses currently defining
tn−3 . Without loss of generality suppose we want to swap xn−1 with a.
The clauses of xor(tn−3 , xn−1 , xn ) are exactly the same as the clauses of
xor(tn−3 , xn−1 , xn ). Using Lemma 1 we can eliminate tn−3 and gain eight clauses
that represent that xn is the ternary xor of a, b and xn−1 . Then we can reverse
the steps but instead swap the positions of xn−1 and a.
 Sorting Parity Encodings by Reusing Variables 7

In this way we can introduce xn−1 or xn into the tree and swap it with
any leaf. Once again we only require O(log n) many applications of Lemma 1 to
completely swap the position of xn−1 or xn with any leaf.

Arriving at the empty clause. The total number of leaf-to-leaf swaps we

are required to perform is bounded above linearly so we stay within O(n log n)
many steps. We can now undo the balanced tree into a linear tree in (we reverse
what we did to balance it) keeping within an O(n log n) upper bound.
Recall that we performed a sort on the variables in Parity(X, T  , e) thereby
transforming it into Parity(X, T  , σ  ) with var(σ  (x)) = var(σ(x)), resulting
in the formula Parity(X, T, σ) ∧ Parity(X, T  , σ  ). Thus the final part of the
proof now involves refuting a formula equivalent to one of the Dubois formulas.
We create a proof that inductively shows equivalence or non-equivalence be-
tween variables tj ∈ T and the tj ∈ T  starting from j = 1 to j = n − 3. If there
is an even number of instances i, 1 ≤ i ≤ j + 1 where σ  (xi ) = σ(xi ) we derive
(t j ∨ tj ) and (t j ∨ tj ). If there are an odd number of instances i, 1 ≤ i ≤ j + 1
where σ  (xi ) = σ(xi ) we instead derive (t j ∨ tj ) and (t j ∨ tj ).
Whichever case, we can increase j with the addition (ATA) of six clauses.
We can think of this as working via DP resolution in a careful order: σ(xj+1 ),
tj−1 , tj from j = 1 to n − 3 in increasing j (and treat σ(x1 ) as t0 ).
Finally, when j = n − 3, we have either already exceeded the single value
i such that σ  (xi ) = σ(xi ), or it appears in n − 1 or n. Either way, we can
add the four clauses (σ(xn−1 ) ∨ σ(xn )), (¬σ(xn−1 ) ∨ σ(xn )), (σ(xn−1 ) ∨ ¬σ(xn )),
(¬σ(xn−1 ) ∨ ¬σ(xn )) then the two unit clauses (σ(xn )) and (¬σ(xn )) and finally
the empty clause. This final part of the refutation uses O(n) many ATA steps.

4 Evaluation

The formulas we ran experiments on are labelled rpar(n, g). Which represent
Parity(X, T, σ(n,g) ) ∧ Parity(X, T  , e) using the DIMACS format. The pa-
rameter n is the number of input variables and a random number genera-
tor g. The CNF uses variables X = {1, . . . , n}, T = {n + 1, . . . , 2n − 3},
T  = {2n − 2, . . . , 3n − 6}, e is the identity permutation, and σ(n,g) is a ran-
dom permutation based on g, where one random literal in,g is flipped by σ.
We ran a program rParSort that generated an instance rpar(n, rnds ) based on
a seed s and also generated a DRAT proof based on Theorem 1. We compare the
size of our proofs by ones produced by the state-of-the-art SAT solver CaDiCaL [1]
(version 1.2.1) and the tool EBDDRES [17] (version 1.1). The latter solves the
instance using binary decision diagrams and turns the construction into an ER
proof. These ER proofs can easily be transformed into the DRAT format as
DRAT generalizes ER. Proof sizes (in the number of DRAT steps, i.e. lines in
the proof) are presented and compared in Figure 4.
rParSort proofs remained feasible for values as large as n = 4000 with proofs
only being 150MB due to the O(n log n) upper bound in proof lines. We believe
8 L. Chew and M.J.H. Heule

n vars clauses lines size(KB)

108
10 24 64 1 681 25
20 54 144 7 469 115 107
50 144 384 30 657 481
101 297 792 77 971 1 426 EBDDRES
106
250 744 1 984 253 777 4 810 CaDiCaL
500 1 494 3 984 583 885 11 176 rParSort
1 000 2 994 7 984 1 344 837 29 278 105
2 000 5 994 15 984 3 023 541 67 405
3 000 8 994 23 984 4 778 373 107 276 104
4 000 11 994 31 984 6 668 629 150 181 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
n

Fig. 4. rParSort proof sizes for rpar(n, rnd53 ) formulas (left). Comparisons of average
(of 10) proof sizes on n ∈ {35, . . . , 45} (right).

leading coefficient is also kept small by number of factors such as the proof lines
being width 4 and only 16 being needed per swap step.
CaDiCaL showed difficulty for modest values of n. While proofs with less than
106 lines are common for n = 35, the size and running time grows exponentially
and by n = 41 proofs are larger than 107 lines. CaDiCaL times out using a 5000
seconds limit on some instances with n = 46 and on most instances with n ≥ 50.
The size of proofs produced by EBDDRES appears to grow slower compared
to CDCL, which is not surprising as BDDs can solve the formulas in polynomial
time. However, as can be observed in Figure 4, the ER proofs are actually bigger
for small n. The extracted DRAT proofs (converted from the ER proofs) are
large: the average proof with n ≥ 35 had more than 107 lines. This means that
this BDD-based approach is not practical to express parity reasoning in DRAT.

5 Conclusion
We have shown that through manipulating existing encoding variables DRAT
can take advantage of the commutativity of xor definitions via Lemma 1. Our
proof generator is capable of producing reasonable-sized proofs for instances with
tens of thousands of variables, while state-of-the-art SAT solvers without xor
detection and Gaussian elimination, such as CaDiCaL, can only solve instances
up to about 60 variables. Although these formulas are also doable for BDD-based
approaches, the resulting proofs are too big for practical purposes.
The DRAT proofs are in the fragment of DRAT− , where the number of
variables stays fixed, which is of potential benefit to the checker. If we are not
concerned with the introduction of new variables, our DRAT proofs can easily
be made into ER proofs with only a 50% increase in addition steps (and the
introduction of new variables). This is an alternative approach that may prove
useful in other settings where elimination of a variable is not so easy.
 Sorting Parity Encodings by Reusing Variables 9

Acknowledgements. The authors thank Armin Biere for his useful comments on
an earlier draft. This work has been support by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) under grant CCF-1618574.

References
1. Biere, A.: CaDiCaL at the SAT Race 2019 (2019)
2. Buss, S., Thapen, N.: DRAT proofs, propagation redundancy, and extended res-
olution. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability
Testing. pp. 71–89. Springer (2019)
3. Crawford, J.M., Kearns, M.J., Schapire, R.E.: The minimal disagreement parity
problem as a hard satisfiability problem (1994)
4. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal
of the ACM 7, 210–215 (1960)
5. Han, C.S., Jiang, J.H.R.: When Boolean satisfiability meets Gaussian elimination
in a simplex way. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) Computer Aided Verifi-
cation. pp. 410–426. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)
6. Heule, M., van Maaren, H.: Aligning CNF- and equivalence-reasoning. In: Hoos,
H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. pp.
145–156. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)
7. Järvisalo, M., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Inprocessing rules. In: Gramlich, B., Miller,
D., Sattler, U. (eds.) Automated Reasoning. pp. 355–370. Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
berg (2012)
8. Kiesl, B., Rebola-Pardo, A., Heule, M.J.H.: Extended resolution simulates DRAT.
In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) Automated Reasoning - 9th
International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2018, Held as Part of the Federated Logic
Conference, FloC 2018, Oxford, UK, July 14–17, 2018, Proceedings. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol. 10900, pp. 516–531. Springer (2018)
9. Laitinen, T., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Extending clause learning DPLL with parity
reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on ECAI 2010: 19th European
Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 21–26. IOS Press, NLD (2010)
10. Laitinen, T., Junttila, T., Niemela, I.: Equivalence class based parity reasoning with
DPLL(XOR). In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 23rd International Conference on
Tools with Artificial Intelligence. pp. 649–658. ICTAI ’11, IEEE Computer Society,
USA (2011)
11. Li, C.M.: Equivalent literal propagation in the DLL procedure. Discrete Applied
Mathematics 130(2), 251–276 (2003), the Renesse Issue on Satisfiability
12. Marques Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT
solvers. In: Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press (2009)
13. Ostrowski, R., Grégoire, É., Mazure, B., Saı̈s, L.: Recovering and exploiting struc-
tural knowledge from CNF formulas. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) Principles and
Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2002. pp. 185–199. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg (2002)
14. Philipp, T., Rebola-Pardo, A.: DRAT proofs for XOR reasoning. In: Michael, L.,
Kakas, A. (eds.) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. pp. 415–429. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing, Cham (2016)
15. Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers as
resolution engines. Artificial Intelligence 175(2), 512–525 (2011)
10 L. Chew and M.J.H. Heule

16. Robinson, J.A.: Theorem-proving on the computer. Journal of the ACM 10(2),
163–174 (1963)
17. Sinz, C., Biere, A.: Extended resolution proofs for conjoining BDDs. In: Grigoriev,
D., Harrison, J., Hirsch, E.A. (eds.) Computer Science – Theory and Applications.
pp. 600–611. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2006)
18. Soos, M.: Enhanced Gaussian elimination in DPLL-based SAT solvers. In: Berre, D.L.
(ed.) POS-10. Pragmatics of SAT. EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 8, pp. 2–14.
EasyChair (2012)
19. Soos, M., Nohl, K., Castelluccia, C.: Extending SAT solvers to cryptographic prob-
lems. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing -
SAT 2009. pp. 244–257. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)
20. Tseitin, G.C.: On the complexity of derivations in propositional calculus. In:
Slisenko, A.O. (ed.) Studies in Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II,
pp. 115–125 (1968)
21. Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM 34(1), 209–219
(1987)
22. Warners, J.P., van Maaren, H.: A two-phase algorithm for solving a class of hard
satisfiability problems. Operations Research Letters 23(3), 81–88 (1998). ISSN
0167-6377
 Community and LBD-Based Clause
Sharing Policy for Parallel SAT Solving

Vincent Vallade1(B) , Ludovic Le Frioux2 , Souheib Baarir1,3 , Julien Sopena1,4 ,

Vijay Ganesh5 , and Fabrice Kordon1
1
CNRS, LIP6, UMR 7606, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
vincent.vallade@lip6.fr
2
LRDE, EPITA, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
3
Université Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France
4
DELYS Team, Inria, Paris, France
5
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Abstract. Modern parallel SAT solvers rely heavily on effective clause

sharing policies for their performance. The core problem being addressed
by these policies can be succinctly stated as “the problem of identifying
high-quality learnt clauses”. These clauses, when shared between the
worker nodes of parallel solvers, should lead to better performance. The
term “high-quality clauses” is often defined in terms of metrics that
solver designers have identified over years of empirical study. Some of
the more well-known metrics to identify high-quality clauses for sharing
include clause length, literal block distance (LBD), and clause usage in
propagation.
In this paper, we propose a new metric aimed at identifying high-
quality learnt clauses and a concomitant clause-sharing policy based on
a combination of LBD and community structure of Boolean formulas.
The concept of community structure has been proposed as a possible
explanation for the extraordinary performance of SAT solvers in indus-
trial instances. Hence, it is a natural candidate as a basis for a metric
to identify high-quality clauses. To be more precise, our metric identi-
fies clauses that have low LBD and low community number as ones that
are high-quality for applications such as verification and testing. The
community number of a clause C measures the number of different com-
munities of a formula that the variables in C span. We perform extensive
empirical analysis of our metric and clause-sharing policy, and show that
our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques on the
benchmark from the parallel track of the last four SAT competitions.

1 Introduction
The encoding of complex combinatorial problems as Boolean satisfiability (SAT)
instances has been widely used in industry and academy over the last few
decades. From AI planning [19] to cryptography [26], modern SAT solvers have
demonstrated their ability to tackle huge formulas with millions of variables
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
L. Pulina and M. Seidl (Eds.): SAT 2020, LNCS 12178, pp. 11–27, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51825-7_2
12 V. Vallade et al.

and clauses. This is instinctively surprising since SAT is an NP-complete prob-

lem [12]. The high-level view of a SAT solver algorithm is the successive enu-
meration of all possible values for each variable of the problem until a solution is
found or the unsatisfiability of the formula is concluded. What makes SAT solv-
ing applicable to large real-world problems is the conflict-driven clause learning
(CDCL) paradigm [24].
During its search, a CDCL solver is able to learn new constraints, in the
form of new implied clauses added to the formula, which allows it to avoid the
exploration of large parts of the search space. In practice too many clauses are
learnt and a selection has to be done to avoid memory explosion. Many heuristics
have been proposed, in the sequential context, to reduce the database of learnt
clauses. Such methods of garbage collection are usually quite aggressive and are
based on measures, such as the literal block distance (LBD), whose aim is to
quantify the usefulness of clauses [4].
The omnipresence of many-core machines has led to considerable efforts in
parallel SAT solving research [7]. There exist two main classes of parallel SAT
strategies: a cooperative one called divide-and-conquer [32] and a competitive
one called portfolio [15]. Both rely on the use of underlying sequential worker
solvers that might share their respective learnt clauses. Each of these sequential
solvers has a copy of the formula and manages its own learnt clause database.
Hence, not all the learnt clauses can be shared and a careful selection must be
made in order for the solvers to be efficient. In state-of-the-art parallel solvers
this filtering is usually based on the LBD metric. The problem with LBD is its
locality, indeed a clause does not necessarily have the same LBD value within
the different sequential solvers’ context.
In this work we explore the use of a more global quality measure based on
the community structure of each instance. It is well-known that SAT instances
encoding real-world problems expose some form of modular structure which
is implicitly exploited by modern CDCL SAT solvers. A recurring property of
industrial instances (as opposed to randomly-generated ones) is that some vari-
ables are more constraint together (linked by more clauses). We say that a group
of variables that have strong link with each other and few links with the rest
of the problem form a community (a type of cluster over the variable-incidence
graph of Boolean formulas). A SAT instance may contain tens to thousand of
communities.
Contributions. The primary contributions of this paper are the following:

– Based on statistics gathered during sequential SAT solver’s executions on

the benchmark from the SAT competition 2018, we study the relationship
between LBD and community, and we analyse the efficacy of LBD and com-
munity as predictive metrics of the usefulness of newly learnt clauses.
– Based on this preliminary analysis, we propose to combine both metrics to
form a new one and to use it to implement a learnt clause sharing policy in
the parallel SAT solving context.
 Community and LBD-Based Clause Sharing Policy for Parallel SAT Solving 13

– We implement our new sharing strategy in the solver (P-MCOMSPS [22]) winner
of the last parallel SAT competition in 2018, and evaluate our solver on the
benchmark from the SAT competition 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. We show
that our solver significantly outperforms competing solvers over this large and
comprehensive benchmark of industrial application instances.

Paper Structure. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: we intro-

duce the basic concepts necessary to understand our work in Sect. 2. Section 3
presents preliminary analysis on LBD usage to provide intuition and motivate
our work. Section 4 explores combination of LBD and COM measures to detect
useful learnt clauses. Solvers and experimental results are presented in Sect. 5.
Section 6 surveys some related works and Sect. 7 concludes this paper.

2 Preliminaries

This section introduces useful definitions, notations, and concepts that will be
used in the remaining of the paper. It is worth noting that we consider the context
of complete SAT solving, and thus we focus on the well-known conflict-driven
clause learning (CDCL) algorithm [24]. For details on CDCL SAT algorithm we
refer the reader to [9].

2.1 Boolean Satisfiability Problem

A Boolean variable is a variable that has two possible values: true or false. A
literal is a Boolean variable or its negation (NOT). A clause is a finite disjunction
(OR) of literals. A conjunctive normal form (CNF) formula is a finite conjunction
(AND) of clauses. In the rest of the paper we use the term formula to refer to
CNF formula. Moreover, clauses are represented by the set of their literals, and
formulas by the set of their clauses.
For a given formula F , we define an assignment of variables of F as a function
A : V → {true, false}, where V is the set of variables appearing in F . A clause
is satisfied when at least one of its literals is evaluated to true. A formula is
satisfied if all its clauses are evaluated to true. A formula is said to be satisfiable
(sat) if there is at least one assignment that makes it true; it is reported unsat-
isfiable (unsat) otherwise. The Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem consists in
determining if a given formula is sat or unsat.

2.2 Literal Block Distance

Literal block distance (LBD) [4] is a positive integer, that is used as a learnt
clause quality metric in almost all competitive sequential CDCL-like SAT solvers.
The LBD of a clause is the number of different decision levels on which variables
of the clause have been assigned. Hence, the LBD of a clause can change over
time and it can be (re)computed each time the clause is fully assigned.
14 V. Vallade et al.

2.3 Community

It is well admitted that real-life SAT formulas exhibit notable “structures”,

explaining why some heuristics such as VSIDS [27] or phase saving [30], for
example, work well. One way to highlight such a structure is to represent the
formula as a graph and analyze its shape. A structure of interest in this paper
is the so-called community structure [1]. Let us have a closer look on this latter.
An undirected weighted graph (graph, for short) is a pair G = (N, w), where
N is the set of nodes of G, and w : N × N → R+ is the associated weight
function which should be commutative.
The variable incident graph (VIG) [1] of a formula F is a graph whose nodes
represent variables of F , and there exists an edge between two variables
 iff they
shared appearance in at least a clause. Hence, a clause C results in |C|2 edges.
Thus, to give the same importance to each clause, edges have a weight: w(x, y) =
 |C|
C∈F 1/ 2 .
x,y∈C
The community detection of a graph is usually captured using the modularity
metric [28]. The modularity function Q(G, P ) (see Eq. 1), takes a graph G and
a partition P = {P1 , . . . , Pn } of nodes of G. It evaluates the density of the
connection of the nodes within a part relatively to the density of the entire graph
w.r.t. a random graph with the same number of nodes and the same degree.
  
 x,y∈Pi w(x, y) deg(x) 2
Q(G, P ) =  − x∈Pi (1)
x,y∈N w(x, y)
Pi ∈P x∈N deg(x)

The modularity of G is the maximal modularity, for any possible partition P

of its nodes: Q(G) = max{Q(G, P ) | P }, and ranges over [0, 1].
Computing the modularity of a graph is an NP-hard problem [11]. However,
there exists greedy and efficient algorithms, returning an approximated lower
bound for the modularity of a graph, such as the Louvain method [10].
In the remaining of the paper we use the Louvain method (with a precision
 = 10−7 ) to compute communities. Graphs we consider are VIG of formulas
already simplified by the SatElite [13] preprocessor.

Community Value of a Clause. We call COM the number of communities

on which a clause span: we work on the VIG of the problem, so we consider com-
munities of variables. Each variable belongs to a unique community (determined
by the Louvain algorithm). To compute the COM of a clause, we consider the
variables corresponding to the literals of the clause and we count the number of
distinct communities represented by these variables.
 Community and LBD-Based Clause Sharing Policy for Parallel SAT Solving 15

3 Measures and Intuition

Our main goal is to improve the overall performances of parallel SAT solving.
One way to do that is to study the quality/impact of shared information between
the underling SAT engines (sequential SAT solvers) in a parallel strategy.
Since determining, a priori, the usefulness of information is already a chal-
lenging task in a sequential context, we can easily imagine the hardness of this
guessing in the parallel setting.
In almost all competitive parallel SAT solvers, the sharing is limited to par-
ticular forms of learnt clauses (unit clauses, clauses with an LBD ≤ i [8,22],
double touched clauses [5]). We propose here to focus our study on LBD and
evaluate the impact of sharing clauses with particular values.

3.1 Sequential SAT Solving, Learnt Clauses and LBD

The starting point of our analysis is to evaluate the usage of learnt clauses in
the two main components of sequential solvers, namely, the unit propagation and
the conflict analysis procedures. Performing this analysis in a sequential setting
makes perfect sense since parallel solvers launch multiple sequential solvers.
To conduct this study, we run Maple-COMSPS [23] on the main track bench-
mark from the SAT competition in 20181 with a 5000 s timeout. Figure 1 depicts
our observations. The x-axis shows the percentage of the mean number of learnt
clauses (considering all learnt clauses of the whole benchmark). The y-axis corre-
sponds to the cumulative usage percentage. Hence, the curve with dots depicts,
for different LBDs (from 1 to 9), the usage of these clauses in unit propaga-
tion. The curve with triangles highlights the same information but for conflict
analysis.2
In both curves, the key observation concerns the inflection located around
LBD = 4. The impact of clauses with LBD ≤ 4 can be considered as very
positive: 60% of usage in unit propagation, and 40% in conflict analysis, while
representing only 3% of the total number of learnt clauses. Moreover, clauses
with an LBD > 4 do not bring a significant added value when considering their
quantities.
Based on these results, 4 appears to be a good LBD value for both limiting
the rate of shared clauses and maximizing the percentage of tracked events in a
parallel context.

3.2 A First Parallel Sharing Strategy

To assess our previous observation, we developed a strategy implementing an

LBD-based clauses sharing: clauses learnt with an LBD below a predetermined
threshold are shared. We then operated this strategy with LBD = 4, but also
1
http://sat2018.forsyte.tuwien.ac.at.
2
On the contrary of this qualitative clause study, benchmarks presented in Sects. 3.2
and 5.2 do not have any logs.
16 V. Vallade et al.

Fig. 1. Usage of learnt clause considering LBD

with the surrounding values (LBD = 3 and LBD = 5). Our strategy has been
integrated into Painless [21]3 using Maple-COMSPS as a sequential solver engine
and a portfolio parallelization strategy. The different solvers we compare are:

– P-MCOMSPS, a portfolio SAT solver, winner of the parallel track of the SAT
competition 2018, is used as a reference. It implements a sharing strategy
based on incremental values for LBD [22].
– P-MCOMSPS-Ln, our new portfolio solver, with LBD ≤ n.

All solvers were processed on a 12-core Intel Xeon CPU at 2.40 GHz and 62
GB of RAM running Linux 4.9. The solvers have been compiled with the version
9.2.1 of GCC. They have been launched with 12 threads, a 61 GB memory limit,
and a wall clock-time limit of 5000 s (as for the SAT competitions). Table 1
presents our measures on the SAT 2017, SAT 2018, and SAT 2019 competition
benchmarks.4 The shaded cells indicate which solver has the best results for a
given benchmark. It shows that the strategy based on an LBD ≤ 4 is not as
efficient as we could expect. In particular, we note a large instability depending
on the sets of instances to be treated.

3
A framework to implement parallel solvers, thus allowing a fair comparison between
strategies.
4
In Table 1, PAR-k is the penalized average runtime, counting each timeout as k times
the running time cutoff. The used value for k in the yearly SAT competition is 2.
 Community and LBD-Based Clause Sharing Policy for Parallel SAT Solving 17

Table 1. Performances comparison for several values of LBD (3, 4, and 5). P-MCOMSPS
is used as a reference.

Solvers 2017 2018 2019

# solved # solved # solved
PAR-2 instances PAR-2 instances PAR-2 instances
P-MCOMSPS 355h42 237 430h13 258 380h03 273
P-MCOMSPS-L3 361h27 234 420h53 263 393h04 269
P-MCOMSPS-L4 356h44 237 411h14 265 391h38 269
P-MCOMSPS-L5 369h27 229 415h52 264 389h27 269

We believe these results are due to the fact that the LBD is too related to
the local state of the solver engines. The intuition we investigate in this paper
is that the LBD metrics must be strengthened with more global information.

4 Combining LBD and Community for Parallel SAT

Solving
As previously stated, we need a metric independent of the local state of a partic-
ular solver engine. Structural information about the instance to be solved can be
useful. For instance, in a portfolio solver, structural information can be shared
among the solvers working on the same formula.
In this paper, we focus on the community structure exhibited by (industrial)
SAT instances. The metrics (COM, defined in Sect. 2.3) derived from this struc-
ture has been proven to be linked with the LBD in [29]. Besides, it has been
used to improve the performances of sequential SAT solving via a preprocessing
approach in [2].
This section shows that communities are good candidates to provide the
needed global information. To do so, we use the same protocol as the one used
in the previous section: (i) studying data on sequential SAT solving to exhibit
good candidates for the parameter values, and then (ii) check its efficiency in
a parallel context. We completed the logs extracted from the sequential experi-
ments presented in Sect. 3 by information on communities and studied the whole
package as follows.

4.1 LBD Versus Communities

First, we studied the relationship between LBD and COM values thanks to
two heatmaps (see Fig. 2). The left part (Fig. 2a) shows, for each LBD value, the
distribution of COM values. The right part (Fig. 2b) shows, for each COM value,
the LBD values distribution. For example, in Fig. 2a, we observe that ≈ 65% of
the clauses with LBD = 1 span on one community (COM = 1), ≈ 20% of them
span on two communities (COM = 2), etc. From these figures, we can conclude
two important statements:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
five, and a salience of rather more than thirteen feet.[85] These were
separated from each other by intervals of ninety feet, or double the
front of a tower. Only the lower parts of the towers are now in
existence, and we have to turn to the representations of fortresses in
the reliefs before we can restore their super-structures with any
certainty. In these sculptures what we may call the head of the tower
equals on an average from a fourth to a fifth of the height of the
curtain. By adopting an elevation half way between these two
proportions, M. Place has given to his towers a total height of 105
feet to the top of their crenellations, a height which is near enough to
the 100 Grecian feet attributed by Diodorus to the Nineveh walls.
The description borrowed by that writer from Ctesias, is, as we have
shown, in most respects quite imaginary, but it may have contained
this one exact statement, especially as a height of about 100 feet
seems to have been usually chosen for cities of this importance.
The parapets of the towers were corbelled out from their walls
and pierced with loopholes, as we know from the reliefs. Each
doorway was flanked by a pair of towers, the wall between them
being only wide enough for the entrance. Our Plate V. will give a very
exact idea of the general appearance of the whole enceinte.
Including those of the palace mound, it has been calculated that the
city of Sargon had one hundred and sixty-seven towers. Was there a
ditch about the wall like that at Babylon? We are tempted to say yes
to this, especially when we remember the statement of Herodotus
that the earth taken from the ditch served to afford materials for the
wall. Moreover such a ditch could have been easily kept full of water
by means of the two mountain streams that flow past the mound. But
the explorers tell us they could find no trace of such a ditch.[86] If it
ever existed it has now been so completely filled up that no vestige
remains.
Upon each of its south-eastern, south-western and north-eastern
faces the city wall was pierced with two gates. One of these,
decorated with sculptures and glazed bricks, is called by Place the
porte ornée, or state entrance, the other, upon which no such
ornament appears, he calls the porte simple. On the north-western
face there is only a porte simple, the palace mound taking the place
of the state gateway. The plinth and the lower courses of burnt brick
are continued up to the arches of these gates; the latter are also
raised upon a kind of mound which lifts them about eight and a half
feet above the level of the plain.
In size and general arrangement these gateways were repetitions
of each other. Our Figs. 50 in the first volume, 24 and 25 in this,
show severally the present condition, the plan and the restored
elevation of a porte simple.

Fig. 24.—Plan of one of the ordinary gates at Khorsabad; from Place.

The entrance was covered by an advanced work, standing out
some eighty-three feet into the plain. Each angle of this sort of
barbican was protected by a low tower, about forty feet wide.
Through the centre of the curtain uniting these towers there is a first
vaulted passage, leading to a large courtyard (A in Fig. 24), beyond
which are the space (B) between the great flanking towers of the
gate proper and the long vaulted passage (C—G) which gives
access to the town. This passage is not a uniform tunnel. The mass
through which it runs is 290 feet thick, and in two places it is crossed
at right angles by transepts wider than itself (D and F). The tunnel
ends in a kind of open vestibule interposed between the inner face of
the wall and the commencement of the street. All these courts,
passages and transepts are paved with large limestone slabs except
the small chamber that opens from one end of the outer transept (I).
This small apartment was not a thoroughfare, but it has been thought
that signs of a staircase leading either to upper rooms or to the
battlements could be traced in it. We have seen that the Egyptian
pylons had such staircases and upper chambers.[87] It would be
curious to find the arrangement repeated here, but we cannot
certainly say that it was so. On the other hand the situation of the
doors by which the entrance into the city was barred is very clearly
marked. At the point where the passage C opens into the transept D
the sockets in which the metal feet of the door pivots were set, are
still in place.[88]
 Fig. 25.—Restoration in perspective of one of the ordinary gates of Khorsabad;
from Place.
The state doorways are distinguished from their more humble
companions, in the first place by a flight of eleven brick-built steps
which have to be mounted before the court A can be reached from
the outside; in the ordinary gateways a gentle inclination of the whole
pavement of the court makes such steps unnecessary. A second
difference is of more importance. At the entrance to the passage
marked C on our plan the state doorways have a pair of winged bulls
whose foreparts stand out a little from the wall while their backs
support the arch. The latter is decorated with the semicircle of
enamelled bricks of which we have already spoken at length in our
chapter upon decoration (Vol. I., Figs. 123 and 124, and below, Fig.
26). Behind the bulls there are two winged genii facing each other
across the passage and about thirteen feet high (Fig. 27).
 Fig. 26.—State gateway at Khorsabad. Elevation; from Place.
That these monumental doorways with their rich decorations
were reserved for pedestrians, is proved by the flight of steps. It was
not thought desirable to subject their sculptures to the dangers of
vehicular traffic. In the portes simples the marks of wheels can be
distinctly traced on the pavements.[89]
 Each of these gateways, whether for carriages or foot
passengers, was a complicated edifice, and the arrangement of their
10,000 square yards of passage and chamber could scarcely have
been explained without the use of plans. Military necessities are
insufficient to explain such elaborate contrivances. The existence of
barbican and flanking towers is justified by them, but hardly the size
of the court and the two great transepts. We cease to be surprised at
these, however, when we remember the part played by the city gates
in the lives of the urban populations of the Levant.
 Fig. 27.—Longitudinal section through the archway of one of the city gates,
Khorsabad; from Place.
In the East the town gate is and always has been what the agora
was to the cities of Greece and the forum to those of Italy. Doubtless
it was ill-adapted to be used as a theatre of political or judicial
debate, like the public places of the Græco-Roman world. But in the
East the municipal life of the West has never obtained a footing. The
monarchy and patriarchal régime have been her two forms of
government; she had no need of wide spaces for crowds of voters or
for popular tribunals. Nothing more was required than a place for
gossip and the retailing of news, a place where the old men could
find themselves surrounded by a circle of fellow townsmen crouched
upon their heels, and, after hearing plaintiffs, defendants and their
witnesses, could give those awards that were the first form of justice.
Nothing could afford a better rendezvous for such purposes than the
gate of a fortified city or village. Hollowed in the thickness of a wall of
prodigious solidity it gave a shelter against the north wind in winter,
while in summer its cool galleries must have been the greatest of
luxuries. Husbandmen going to their fields, soldiers setting out on
expeditions, merchants with their caravans, all passed through these
resounding archways and had a moment in which to hear and tell the
news. Those whom age or easy circumstances relieved from toil or
war passed much of their time in the gates talking with all comers or
sunk in the sleepy reverie in which orientals pass so much of their
lives.
All this is painted for us with the most simple fidelity in the Bible.
“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot seeing them,
rose up to meet them.”[90] When Abraham buys a burying place in
Hebron he addresses himself to Ephron, the owner of the ground,
“and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the
children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city.”[91] So
too Boaz, when he wishes to marry Ruth and to get all those who
had rights over the young Moabitess to resign them in his favour,
“went up to the gate, and sat him down there ... and he took ten men
of the elders of the city, and said, sit ye down here. And they sat
down.”[92] And these old men were called upon to witness the acts of
resignation performed by Ruth’s nearest relatives.[93]
So too, in later ages, when the progress of political life led kings
to inhabit great separate buildings of their own, the palace gates
became for the courtiers what the city gates were for the population
at large. At Khorsabad they were constructed on exactly the same
plan as those of the town; they are even more richly decorated and
the chambers they inclose are no less spacious. In them servants,
guards, military officers, foreign ambassadors and wire-pullers of
every kind could meet, lounge about, and await their audiences.
Read the book of Esther carefully and you will find continual
allusions to this custom. “In those days, while Mordecai sat in the
king’s gate, two of the king’s chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of
those which kept the door, were wroth, and sought to lay hands on
the king Ahasuerus.”[94] The gates of the palace must have been
open to all comers for a man of despised race and a butt for the
insults of Haman, like Mordecai, to have been enabled to overhear
the secret whispers of the king’s chamberlains. In the sequel we find
Mordecai hardly ever moving from this spot.

Assis le plus souvent aux portes du palais,

as Racine says, he thence addresses to Esther the advice by which

she is governed. He did not stand up, as he must have done in a
mere passage, for Haman complains that he did not rise and do him
reverence.[95]
This use of gates has not been abandoned in the East. At
Mossoul, for instance, the entrances to the city are buildings with
several rooms in them, and in the gate opening upon the Tigris M.
Place often saw the governor of the province seated among his
officers in an upper chamber and dispensing justice.[96] In the same
town the doorways of a few great private houses are frequented in
the same fashion by the inhabitants of the quarter. This was the case
with the French Consulate, which was established in a large house
that had been the ancestral home of a family of independent beys,
now extinct. At the entrance there was a chamber covered with a
depressed cupola and surrounded by stone benches. Right and left
were four lodges for porters, and on one side a staircase leading to
four upper rooms built over the vault. One of these served as a
divan. All this was separated by a large courtyard from the dwelling
place proper, and even after the building had become a part of
France, the neighbours kept up their habit of coming to sit and
gossip under its dome.[97]
 The word porte has thus acquired a significance in every
European language that could hardly be understood but for the light
thrown upon it by such customs as those illustrated by the remains
of Assyrian architecture, and alluded to so often in the sacred
writings. Every one who has visited Stamboul, has seen in the first
court of the Old Seraglio, that arched doorway (Bab-i-Houmaioun) in
whose niches the heads of great criminals and rebellious vassals
used once to be placed; it formerly led to the saloons in which the
Ottoman sultans presided at the great council, listened to the reports
of their officers, and received foreign ambassadors. The doorway
through which the august presence was reached ended by
representing in the imagination of those who passed through it; first,
the whole of the building to which it belonged, and secondly, the
sovereign enthroned behind it. The decrees in which the successors
of Mohammed II. made known their will ended with these words:
“Given at our Sublime Gate, at our Gate of Happiness.” In later years
the Old Seraglio was abandoned. The different public departments
were removed into a huge edifice more like a barracks than an
eastern palace, but the established formula was retained. In the
Constantinople of to-day “to go to the Porte” means to go to the
government offices, and even the government itself, the sultan, that
is, and his ministers, are known in all the chancelleries of Europe as
the Porte, the Sublime Porte, the Ottoman Porte.
It was, no doubt, by a metonomy of the same kind that the capital
of ancient Chaldæa, the town into which the principal sanctuaries of
the national gods were gathered, was called Bab-ilou, the Gate of
God, which was turned by the Greeks into Βαβυλών, or Babylon.
After our careful description of the remains left by the city of
Sargon we need enter into few details as to the other fortified
enceintes that have been explored in Mesopotamia. The same
rectangular plan, the same thick walls and carefully arranged
gateways are to be found in them all. With the Assyrians as with their
neighbours, every town was fortified. The square form seems to
have been universally employed for the flanking towers. It is quite by
exception that we find in one of the pictures of a siege on the
Balawat gates, tall and slender towers that appear to be round on
plan and to be much higher than the curtain they defend (Fig. 28).
Besides these town walls there were, no doubt, at the mouths of the
valleys opening into the basin of the Tigris, strong forts and isolated
towers, perched upon some abrupt rock or ridge: the siege of such a
fortress seems to be going on in the relief figured on the next page
(Fig. 29). The platform at the top of the tower seems to be raised and
strengthened by a structure of wood, which stands out beyond the
crenellations and is protected by a row of shields, like the bulwarks
of a Roman galley. This contrivance resembles those ourdeys of
which the military engineers of the middle ages made such constant
use. The garrison still show a bold front from behind their defences,
but the women and old men, foreseeing the fall of their stronghold,
are decamping while there is yet time.

Fig. 28.—Fortified wall; from the Balawat gates. British Museum.

The military successes of the Assyrians are partly to be explained
by their engineering skill. In all that concerned the attack and
defence of places they seem to have left the Egyptians far behind. In
addition to mines and battering rams they employed movable towers
which they pushed forward against such walls as they wished to
attack point blank, and thought either too high or too well lined with
defenders to be open to escalade (Vol. I., Fig. 26). In the relief partly
reproduced on page 75, the defenders have not ceased their
resistance, but in the lower section, in what we may call the predella
of the picture, we see a long band of prisoners of both sexes being
led off by soldiers. These we may suppose to be captives taken in
the suburbs of the beleaguered city, or in battles already won.[98]

Fig. 29.—Siege of a fort; from Layard.

 The Assyrians not only understood how to defend their own
cities, and to destroy those of their foes, they were fully alive to the
necessity for good carriage roads, if their armies and military
machines were to be transported rapidly from place to place. How far
these roads extended we do not know, but Place ascertained the
existence of paved causeways debouching from the gates of Dour-
Saryoukin,[99] and unless they stretched at least to the frontiers, it is
difficult to see how the Assyrians could have made such great use
as they did of war chariots. Not one of their series of military pictures
can be named in which they do not appear, and they are by no
means the heavy and clumsy cars now used in some parts both of
European and Asiatic Turkey. Their wheels are far from being those
solid disks of timber that are alone capable of resisting the
inequalities of a roadless country. They have not the lightness of a
modern carriage with its tires of beaten steel, but the felloes of their
wheels are light and graceful enough to prove that the roads of those
times were better than anything the Mesopotamia of to-day can
show. The spokes, which seem to have been fitted with great care
and nicety, are, as a rule, eight in number (Figs. 21 and 31).
 Fig. 30.—An attack by escalade; from Layard.
In the interior of the town—we are still speaking of the town of
Sargon—these same causeways formed the principal streets. They
were about forty feet wide. Their construction was, of course, far
inferior to that of a Roman road. There were no footpaths, either
within or without the cities; the stones were small, irregular in shape,
and not of a very durable kind. They were placed in a single layer,
and the pavement when finished looked like a mere bed of broken
stones. All Mesopotamia, however, cannot now show a road that can
be compared to these ancient ways. Wherever the traveller goes, his
beasts of burden and the wheels of his carts sink either into a bed of
dust or into deep and clinging mud, according to the season. It is no
better in the towns. Whoever has had the ill luck to be out, in the
rainy season, in the sloughs and sewers that the Turks call streets,
will be ready to acknowledge that the civilization of Assyria in the
time of Sargon was better furnished than that of Turkey in the days
of Abdul-Hamid.

Fig. 31.—Chariot for three combatants; from the palace of Assurbanipal. Louvre.
Height 16 inches. Drawn by Bourgoin.
At Khorsabad, where the main streets must, like those of
Babylon, have intersected each other at right angles, how were the
buildings, public and private, arranged? We might have had an
answer to this interesting question had M. Place been in command
of enough time and means to clear the whole interior of the enceinte.
Even as it was he found enough to justify him in asserting that the
great inclosure of some eight hundred acres was not, as we might be
tempted to imagine at first sight, a royal park attached to the palace,
but a city. He sunk trenches at three points where low mounds
suggested the presence of ruins, and all his doubts soon
disappeared. Several yards below the present level of the ground he
found the original surface, with the pavements of streets, courtyards
and rooms; doorways with their thresholds and jambs; walls covered
with stucco, cut stone and even alabaster slabs; potsherds,
fragments of brick and utensils of various kinds—decisive evidence,
in fact, that one of those agglomerations of civilized human beings
that we call towns, had formerly occupied the site.
 CHAPTER II.
SCULPTURE.

§ 1.—The principal themes of Chaldæo-Assyrian Sculpture.

The Egyptian notions as to a future life had much to do with the

rapidity with which the art of sculpture was developed during the
early years of their history. There was a close relation between their
religion and the rites it implied, on the one hand, and the peculiar
characteristics of the most ancient Memphite sculptures on the other.
We cannot say the same of Chaldæa. So far as our present
knowledge extends, we have no reason to suppose that the first
efforts of the Mesopotamian sculptor were directed to providing the
umbra, the immaterial inhabitant of the tomb, with a material support
which should resemble as closely as possible the body of flesh and
bones that, in spite of every precaution, would sooner or later end in
dust and nothingness. No monument has come down to us in which
we can recognize a portrait image executed for a sepulchre.[100]
And yet the basis of the Chaldæan religion was similar to that of
Egypt. Taken as a whole, the beliefs as to a posthumous life were
the same in both countries. Why then had they such different effects
upon the arts? For this we may give several reasons. The first is the
comparatively small importance forced upon the Chaldæan tomb by
the nature of the soil. In mere coffins of terra-cotta, and even in
those narrow brick vaults that are met with at certain points, at
Mugheir and Warka for instance, there is no room for a single statue,
still less for the crowds of images held by a Gizeh or Sakkarah
mastaba. Add to this that stone was rare and dear, that it had to be
brought from a great distance, and we shall comprehend why
funerary rites and the worship of the dead exercised no appreciable
influence over Chaldæan sculpture.
Here the beginnings of art are more obscure than in Egypt. In the
first place we cannot trace them back nearly so far, in the second
both statues and bas-reliefs are much less numerous. In spite of
recent discoveries, to which we owe much, Egypt still remains
unrivalled both by the prodigious antiquity into whose depths she
allows us to catch a glimpse, and by the ever-increasing multitude of
monuments and tombs that are found in her soil. The night that hides
the birth of civilization is darker in Mesopotamia than in the Nile
valley; it does not allow us to perceive how the plastic faculty was
first awakened, and why it took one direction more than another; we
cannot tell why the modeller of Lower Chaldæa set himself to handle
clay, or carve wood and stone into the shape of some real or
fantastic creature. On the other hand, when we study Chaldæan
sculpture in the oldest of those works that have come down to us, we
are struck by the fact that, even in the remote centuries to which
those carvings belong, Chaldæan art interested itself in all the
aspects of nature and in every variety of living form. It had
nevertheless its favourite themes, namely, the representations of
royal and divine personages.
When first called upon to suggest the ideas of divine power and
perfection, art had no other resource but to borrow features and
characteristics from those mortal forms that must always, in one
point or another, seem incomplete and unfinished. Of all
undertakings that could be proposed to it, this was at once the most
noble and the most difficult. To find a real solution of the problem we
must turn to the Greeks. Of all ancient peoples they were the first to
perceive the unrivalled nobility of the human form; they were the first
to decide that the notion of divine superiority, of a divine principle,
could be best suggested in all its infinite varieties, through that form.
We shall see them obtain the results at which they aimed by giving
to man’s body and features a charm, a grandeur, a purity of line—in
a word, a perfection, to which no single living member of the race
can attain. The Chaldæans had no sufficiently clear idea of such a
system, and, more especially, they never acquired enough familiarity
with the nude, to rival the grace and dignity given by the Greeks to
their divine types; but their art was more frankly anthropomorphic
than that of Egypt, and, as we shall have occasion to show, it
created many types that were transmitted to the Mediterranean
nations, and soon adopted by them. These types were perfected, but
not invented, by the Greeks.
 We have already given more than one example of how the
Chaldæan intellect set about the manifestation of its ideas as to gods
and demons, how it expressed their characteristics by
heterogeneous forms borrowed from various real animals. The
powers of evil were first embodied in this fashion (Vol. I. Figs. 6, 7,
161, 162). The sculptor went far afield to find the elements of
ugliness that he wished to combine in a single being; this is nowhere
to be better seen than in a bronze statuette belonging to the Louvre
(Fig. 32). Here too we are better informed than usual. An inscription
engraved on the back tells us that this is the demon of the south-
west wind, the most scorching and generally unpleasant of the winds
that visit Mesopotamia. The ring in the head served to hang it up in
front of the window or doorway of a house. Thanks to such a
precaution, the inhabitants of that dwelling would be protected
against the ill effects of the parching breath of the desert. The
sculptor has wished to make this tyrant of the atmosphere as
hideous and repulsive as possible, and he has only succeeded too
well. One can hardly imagine anything more frightful than his
grinning, quasi-human countenance, resembling a death’s head in
some of its lines; the great round eyes and goat’s horns with which it
is surrounded add to its deformity. Its meagre body has some hints
at hair on its right side. The hands are large and flat, the fingers
short and blunt, while the feet are a curious combination of human
extremities with the talons of a bird of prey.
On the other hand this mixture of forms is by no means repulsive
in the case of certain personages who appear to belong either to the
class of beneficent genii or to that of the great deities of the Chaldee
pantheon. The combination is especially well managed in the winged
bulls. The head is that of a man, but about the tiara with which it is
crowned several pairs of horns are bent. These horns are among the
attributes of the beast by whose nature this complex being is
dominated. They are part of the offensive armament of the one
animal which enjoys in popular esteem an equal reputation for
strength with the lion. The body and limbs, too, are those of a bull,
while the curly main recalls that of the king of beasts. The whole is
completed by a pair of large wings borrowed from the eagle.