In multi-agent path finding (MAPF) the task is to navigate agents from their starting positions to given individual goals. The problem takes place in an undirected graph whose vertices represent positions and edges define the topology. Agents can move to neighbor vertices across edges. In the standard MAPF, space occupation by agents is modeled by a capacity constraint that permits at most one agent per vertex. We suggest an extension of MAPF in this paper that permits more than one agent per vertex. Propositional satisfiability (SAT) models for these extensions of MAPF are studied. We focus on modeling capacity constraints in SAT-based formulations of MAPF and evaluation of performance of these models. We extend two existing SAT-based formulations with vertex capacity constraints: MDD-SAT and SMT-CBS where the former is an approach that builds the model in an eager way while the latter relies on lazy construction of the model.
The idea behind the SAT-based approach is to construct a propositional formula @math such that it is satisfiable if and only if a solution of a given MAPF of sum-of-costs @math exists @cite_3 . Moreover, the approach is constructive; that is, @math exactly reflects the MAPF instance and if satisfiable, solution of MAPF can be reconstructed from satisfying assignment of the formula. We say @math to be a complete propositional model of MAPF.
@cite_3
1515930456 2951782995 2152383085 16743356
The problem of deciding the satisfiability of a quantifier-free formula with respect to a background theory, also known as Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), is gaining increasing relevance in verification: representation capabilities beyond propositional logic allow for a natural modeling of real-world problems (e.g., pipeline and RTL circuits verification, proof obligations in software systems). In this paper, we focus on the case where the background theory is the combination T1∪T2 of two simpler theories. Many SMT procedures combine a boolean model enumeration with a decision procedure for T1∪T2, where conjunctions of literals can be decided by an integration schema such as Nelson-Oppen, via a structured exchange of interface formulae (e.g., equalities in the case of convex theories, disjunctions of equalities otherwise). We propose a new approach for SMT(T1∪T2), called Delayed Theory Combination, which does not require a decision procedure for T1∪T2, but only individual decision procedures for T1 and T2, which are directly integrated into the boolean model enumerator. This approach is much simpler and natural, allows each of the solvers to be implemented and optimized without taking into account the others, and it nicely encompasses the case of non-convex theories. We show the effectiveness of the approach by a thorough experimental comparison. Propositional model counting (#SAT), i.e., counting the number of satisfying assignments of a propositional formula, is a problem of significant theoretical and practical interest. Due to the inherent complexity of the problem, approximate model counting, which counts the number of satisfying assignments to within given tolerance and confidence level, was proposed as a practical alternative to exact model counting. Yet, approximate model counting has been studied essentially only theoretically. The only reported implementation of approximate model counting, due to Karp and Luby, worked only for DNF formulas. A few existing tools for CNF formulas are bounding model counters; they can handle realistic problem sizes, but fall short of providing counts within given tolerance and confidence, and, thus, are not approximate model counters. We present here a novel algorithm, as well as a reference implementation, that is the first scalable approximate model counter for CNF formulas. The algorithm works by issuing a polynomial number of calls to a SAT solver. Our tool, ApproxMC, scales to formulas with tens of thousands of variables. Careful experimental comparisons show that ApproxMC reports, with high confidence, bounds that are close to the exact count, and also succeeds in reporting bounds with small tolerance and high confidence in cases that are too large for computing exact model counts. We consider the problem of computing optimal plans for propositional planning problems with action costs. In the spirit of leveraging advances in general-purpose automated reasoning for that setting, we develop an approach that operates by solving a sequence of partial weighted MaxSAT problems, each of which corresponds to a step-bounded variant of the problem at hand. Our approach is the first SAT-based system in which a proof of cost optimality is obtained using a MaxSAT procedure. It is also the first system of this kind to incorporate an admissible planning heuristic. We perform a detailed empirical evaluation of our work using benchmarks from a number of International Planning Competitions. From a computational perspective, there is a close connection between various probabilistic reasoning tasks and the problem of counting or sampling satisfying assignments of a propositional theory. We consider the question of whether state-of-the-art satisfiability procedures, based on random walk strategies, can be used to sample uniformly or nearuniformly from the space of satisfying assignments. We first show that random walk SAT procedures often do reach the full set of solutions of complex logical theories. Moreover, by interleaving random walk steps with Metropolis transitions, we also show how the sampling becomes near-uniform.