It has been widely observed that there is no single “dominant ” SAT solver; instead, different solvers perform best on different instances. Rather than following the traditional approach of choosing the best solver for a given class of instances, we advocate making this decision online on a per-instance basis. Building on previous work, we describe SATzilla, an automated approach for constructing per-instance algorithm portfolios for SAT that use so-called empirical hardness models to choose among their constituent solvers. This approach takes as input a distribution of problem instances and a set of component solvers, and constructs a portfolio optimizing a given objective function (such as mean runtime, percent of instances solved, or score in a competition). The excellent performance of our SATzilla portfolios has been independently verified in the 2007 SAT Competition, where our SATzilla-07 solvers won three gold, one silver and one bronze medal. In this article, we go well beyond SATzilla-07 by making the portfolio construction scalable and completely automated, and improving it by integrating local search solvers as candidate solvers, by predicting performance score instead of runtime, and by using hierarchical hardness models that take into account different types of SAT instances. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these new techniques in extensive experimental results on data sets including instances from the most recent SAT competition. 1.

Abstract. It has been widely observed that there is no “dominant” SAT solver; instead, different solvers perform best on different instances. Rather than following the traditional approach of choosing the best solver for a given class of instances, we advocate making this decision online on a per-instance basis. Building on previous work, we describe a per-instance solver portfolio for SAT, SATzilla-07, which uses socalled empirical hardness models to choose among its constituent solvers. We leverage new model-building techniques such as censored sampling and hierarchical hardness models, and demonstrate the effectiveness of our techniques by building a portfolio of state-of-the-art SAT solvers and evaluating it on several widely-studied SAT data sets. Overall, we show that our portfolio significantly outperforms its constituent algorithms on every data set. Our approach has also proven itself to be effective in practice: in the 2007 SAT competition, SATzilla-07 won three gold medals, one silver, and one bronze; it is available online at

Restart strategies are commonly used for minimizing the computational cost of randomized algorithms, but require prior knowledge of the run-time distribution in order to be effective. We propose a portfolio of two strategies, one fixed, with a provable bound on performance, the other based on a model of run-time distribution, updated as the two strategies are run on a sequence of problems. Computational resources are allocated probabilistically to the two strategies, based on their performances, using a well-known ¨-armed bandit problem solver. We present bounds on the performance of the resulting technique, and experiments with a satisfiability problem solver, showing rapid convergence to a near-optimal execution time.

Algorithm selection can be performed using a model of runtime distribution, learned during a preliminary training phase. There is a trade-off between the performance of model-based algorithm selection, and the cost of learning the model. In this paper, we treat this trade-off in the context of bandit problems. We propose a fully dynamic and online algorithm selection technique, with no separate training phase: all candidate algorithms are run in parallel, while a model incrementally learns their runtime distributions. A redundant set of time allocators uses the partially trained model to propose machine time shares for the algorithms. A bandit problem solver mixes the model-based shares with a uniform share, gradually increasing the impact of the best time allocators as the model improves. We present experiments with a set of SAT solvers on a mixed SAT-UNSAT benchmark; and with a set of solvers for the Auction Winner Determination problem.