Conflict-driven Clause Learning Research Articles

QCDCL with cube learning or pure literal elimination – What is best?

Quantified conflict-driven clause learning (QCDCL) is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). We formalise and investigate several versions of QCDCL that include cube learning and/or pure-literal elimination, and formally compare the resulting solving variants via proof complexity techniques. Our results show that almost all of the QCDCL variants are exponentially incomparable with respect to proof size (and hence solver running time), pointing towards different orthogonal ways how to practically implement QCDCL.

Dependency Schemes in CDCL-Based QBF Solving: A Proof-Theoretic Study

In Quantified Boolean Formulas QBFs, dependency schemes help to detect spurious or superfluous dependencies that are implied by the variable ordering in the quantifier prefix but are not essential for constructing countermodels. This detection can provably shorten refutations in specific proof systems, and is expected to speed up runs of QBF solvers. The proof system QCDCL\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ exttt{QCDCL}$$\\end{document} recently defined by Beyersdorff and Boehm (LMCS 2023) abstracts the reasoning employed by QBF solvers based on conflict-driven clause-learning (CDCL) techniques. We show how to incorporate the use of dependency schemes into this proof system, either in a preprocessing phase, or in the propagations and clause learning, or both. We then show that when the reflexive resolution path dependency scheme Drrs\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ exttt{D}^{\ exttt{rrs}}$$\\end{document} is used, a mixed picture emerges: the proof systems that add Drrs\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ exttt{D}^{\ exttt{rrs}}$$\\end{document} to QCDCL\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ exttt{QCDCL}$$\\end{document} in these three ways are not only incomparable with each other, but are also incomparable with the basic QCDCL\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ exttt{QCDCL}$$\\end{document} proof system that does not use Drrs\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ exttt{D}^{\ exttt{rrs}}$$\\end{document} at all, as well as with several other resolution-based QBF proof systems. A notable fact is that all our separations are achieved through QBFs with bounded quantifier alternation.

Design and implementation of modern CDCL ASP solvers

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a declarative language oriented towards solving complex combinatorial problems. In fact, ASP has been successfully used to address problems in various academic and industrial domains. The success of ASP can be attributed to its concise syntax, intuitive semantics, and the availability of several efficient solvers based on the Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) algorithm. This paper details the design and implementation of contemporary CDCL solvers, emphasizing both algorithmic descriptions and their effective and efficientimplementation.

Runtime vs. Extracted Proof Size: An Exponential Gap for CDCL on QBFs

Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is the dominating algorithmic paradigm for SAT solving and hugely successful in practice. In its lifted version QCDCL, it is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). In both SAT and QBF, proofs can be efficiently extracted from runs of (Q)CDCL solvers. While for CDCL, it is known that the proof size in the underlying proof system propositional resolution matches the CDCL runtime up to a polynomial factor, we show that in QBF there is an exponential gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of the extracted proofs in QBF resolution systems. We demonstrate that this is not just a gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of any QBF resolution proof, but even the extracted proofs are exponentially smaller for some instances. Hence searching for a small proof via QCDCL (even with non-deterministic decision policies) will provably incur an exponential overhead for some instances.

Hardness of Random Reordered Encodings of Parity for Resolution and CDCL

Parity reasoning is challenging for Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) SAT solvers. This has been observed even for simple formulas encoding two contradictory parity constraints with different variable orders (Chew and Heule 2020). We provide an analytical explanation for their hardness by showing that they require exponential resolution refutations with high probability when the variable order is chosen at random. We obtain this result by proving that these formulas, which are known to be Tseitin formulas, have Tseitin graphs of linear treewidth with high probability. Since such Tseitin formulas require exponential resolution refutations, our result follows. We generalize this argument to a new class of formulas that capture a basic form of parity reasoning involving a sum of two random parity constraints with random orders. Even when the variable order for the sum is chosen favorably, these formulas remain hard for resolution. In contrast, we prove that they have short DRAT refutations. We show experimentally that the running time of CDCL SAT solvers on both classes of formulas grows exponentially with their treewidth.

Disjoint Partial Enumeration without Blocking Clauses

A basic algorithm for enumerating disjoint propositional models (disjoint AllSAT) is based on adding blocking clauses incrementally, ruling out previously found models. On the one hand, blocking clauses have the potential to reduce the number of generated models exponentially, as they can handle partial models. On the other hand, the introduction of a large number of blocking clauses affects memory consumption and drastically slows down unit propagation. We propose a new approach that allows for enumerating disjoint partial models with no need for blocking clauses by integrating: Conflict-Driven Clause-Learning (CDCL), Chronological Backtracking (CB), and methods for shrinking models (Implicant Shrinking). Experiments clearly show the benefits of our novel approach.

Should Decisions in QCDCL Follow Prefix Order?

Quantified conflict-driven clause learning (QCDCL) is one of the main solving approaches for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). One of the differences between QCDCL and propositional CDCL is that QCDCL typically follows the prefix order of the QBF for making decisions. We investigate an alternative model for QCDCL solving where decisions can be made in arbitrary order. The resulting system QCDCLANY\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ extsf{QCDCL}^\ extsf {{A\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$\\end{document} is still sound and terminating, but does not necessarily allow to always learn asserting clauses or cubes. To address this potential drawback, we additionally introduce two subsystems that guarantee to always learn asserting clauses (QCDCLUNI-ANY\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ extsf{QCDCL}^\ extsf {{U\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ni}}-A\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$\\end{document}) and asserting cubes (QCDCLEXI-ANY\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ extsf{QCDCL}^\ extsf {{E\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {xi}}-A\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$\\end{document}), respectively. We model all four approaches by formal proof systems and show that QCDCLUNI-ANY\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ extsf{QCDCL}^\ extsf {{U\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ni}}-A\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$\\end{document} is exponentially better than QCDCL\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\mathsf{{QCDCL}} $$\\end{document} on false formulas, whereas QCDCLEXI-ANY\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\ extsf{QCDCL}^\ extsf {{E\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {xi}}-A\ iny {\\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$\\end{document} is exponentially better than QCDCL\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\mathsf{{QCDCL}} $$\\end{document} on true QBFs. Technically, this involves constructing specific QBF families and showing lower and upper bounds in the respective proof systems. We complement our theoretical study with some initial experiments that confirm our theoretical findings.

IntSat: integer linear programming by conflict-driven constraint learning

State-of-the-art SAT solvers are nowadays able to handle huge real-world instances. The key to this success is the Conflict-Driven Clause-Learning (CDCL) scheme, which encompasses a number of techniques that exploit the conflicts that are encountered during the search for a solution. In this article, we extend these techniques to Integer Linear Programming (ILP), where variables may take general integer values instead of purely binary ones, constraints are more expressive than just propositional clauses, and there may be an objective function to optimize. We explain how these methods can be implemented efficiently and discuss possible improvements. Our work is backed with a basic implementation showing that, even in this far less mature stage, our techniques are already a useful complement to the state of the art in ILP.

Preprocessing of Propagation Redundant Clauses

The propagation redundant (PR) proof system generalizes the resolution and resolution asymmetric tautology proof systems used by conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) solvers. PR allows short proofs of unsatisfiability for some problems that are difficult for CDCL solvers. Previous attempts to automate PR clause learning used hand-crafted heuristics that work well on some highly-structured problems. For example, the solver SaDiCaL incorporates PR clause learning into the CDCL loop, but it cannot compete with modern CDCL solvers due to its fragile heuristics. We present PReLearn, a preprocessing technique that learns short PR clauses. Adding these clauses to a formula reduces the search space that the solver must explore. By performing PR clause learning as a preprocessing stage, PR clauses can be found efficiently without sacrificing the robustness of modern CDCL solvers. On a large portion of SAT competition benchmarks we found that preprocessing with PReLearn improves solver performance. In addition, there were several satisfiable and unsatisfiable formulas that could only be solved after preprocessing with PReLearn. PReLearn supports proof logging, giving a high level of confidence in the results. Lastly, we tested the robustness of PReLearn by applying other forms of preprocessing as well as by randomly permuting variable names in the formula before running PReLearn, and we found PReLearn performed similarly with and without the changes to the formula.

SCL(EQ): SCL for First-Order Logic with Equality

We propose a new calculus SCL(EQ) for first-order logic with equality that only learns non-redundant clauses. Following the idea of CDCL (Conflict Driven Clause Learning) and SCL (Clause Learning from Simple Models) a ground literal model assumption is used to guide inferences that are then guaranteed to be non-redundant. Redundancy is defined with respect to a dynamically changing ordering derived from the ground literal model assumption. We prove SCL(EQ) sound and complete and provide examples where our calculus improves on superposition.

Machine Learning Methods in Solving the Boolean Satisfiability Problem

This paper reviews the recent literature on solving the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT), an archetypal $$\cal{N}\cal{P}$$ -complete problem, with the aid of machine learning (ML) techniques. Over the last decade, the machine learning society advances rapidly and surpasses human performance on several tasks. This trend also inspires a number of works that apply machine learning methods for SAT solving. In this survey, we examine the evolving ML SAT solvers from naive classifiers with handcrafted features to emerging end-to-end SAT solvers, as well as recent progress on combinations of existing conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) and local search solvers with machine learning methods. Overall, solving SAT with machine learning is a promising yet challenging research topic. We conclude the limitations of current works and suggest possible future directions. The collected paper list is available at https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/awesome-ml4co .

Top-k Learned Clauses for Modern SAT Solvers

Clause Learning is one of the most important components of a conflict driven clause learning (CDCL) SAT solver that is effective on industrial SAT instances. Since the number of learned clauses is proved to be exponential in the worst case, it is necessary to identify the most relevant clauses to maintain and delete the irrelevant ones. As reported in the literature, several learned clauses deletion strategies have been proposed. However the diversity in both the number of clauses to be removed at each step of reduction and the results obtained with each strategy increase the difficulty to determine which criterion is better. Thus, the problem to select which learned clauses are to be removed during the search step remains very challenging. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to identify the most relevant learned clauses without favoring or excluding any of the proposed measures, but by adopting the notion of dominance relationship among those measures. Our approach bypasses the problem of difference in the results obtained with different measures and reaches a compromise between the measures assessments. Furthermore, the proposed approach also reduces the non-trivial problem of choosing the number of clauses to delete at each reduction of the learned clause database.

SMT solving for the validation of B and Event-B models

ProB provides a constraint solver for the B-method written in Prolog and can make use of different backends based on SAT and SMT solving. One such backend translates B and Event-B operators to SMT-LIB using the Z3 solver. This translation uses quantifiers to axiomatize some operators, which are not well-handled by Z3. Several relational constraints such as the transitive closure are not supported by this translation. In this article, we substantially improve the translation to SMT-LIB by employing a more constructive rather than axiomatized style using Z3’s lambda function. Thereby, we are able both to translate more B and Event-B operators to SMT-LIB and improve the overall performance. We further extend ProB’s interface to Z3 to run different solver configurations in parallel. In addition, we present a direct implementation of SMT solving in Prolog using ProB’s constraint solver as a theory solver. We hereby aim to combine the strengths of conflict-driven clause learning for identifying contradictions with ProB’s constraint solver for finding solutions. We deem this implementation to be worthwhile since ProB’s constraint solver is tailored toward solving B and Event-B constraints, and we herewith avoid the dependency on an external SMT solver. Empirical results show that the new integration of Z3 has improved performance of constraint solving and enables to solve several constraints which cannot be solved by ProB’s constraint solver. Furthermore, the direct implementation of SMT solving in ProB shows benefits compared to ProB’s constraint solver and the integration of Z3.

Multi-Agent Path Finding: A New Boolean Encoding

Multi-agent pathfinding (MAPF) is an NP-hard problem. As such, dense maps may be very hard to solve optimally. In such scenarios, compilation-based approaches, via Boolean satisfiability (SAT) and answer set programming (ASP), have been shown to outperform heuristic-search-based approaches, such as conflict-based search (CBS). In this paper, we propose a new Boolean encoding for MAPF, and show how to implement it in ASP and MaxSAT. A feature that distinguishes our encoding from existing ones is that swap and follow conflicts are encoded using binary clauses, which can be exploited by current conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) solvers. In addition, the number of clauses used to encode swap and follow conflicts do not depend on the number of agents, allowing us to scale better. For MaxSAT, we study different ways in which we may combine the MSU3 and LSU algorithms for maximum performance. In our experimental evaluation, we used square grids, ranging from 20 x 20 to 50 x 50 cells, and warehouse maps, with a varying number of agents and obstacles. We compared against representative solvers of the state-of-the-art, including the search-based algorithm CBS, the ASP-based solver ASP-MAPF, and the branch-and-cut-and-price hybrid solver, BCP. We observe that the ASP implementation of our encoding, ASP-MAPF2 outperforms other solvers in most of our experiments. The MaxSAT implementation of our encoding, MtMS shows best performance in relatively small warehouse maps when the number of agents is large, which are the instances with closer resemblance to hard puzzle-like problems.

Too much information: Why CDCL solvers need to forget learned clauses.

Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is a remarkably successful paradigm for solving the satisfiability problem of propositional logic. Instead of a simple depth-first backtracking approach, this kind of solver learns the reason behind occurring conflicts in the form of additional clauses. However, despite the enormous success of CDCL solvers, there is still only a limited understanding of what influences the performance of these solvers in what way. Considering different measures, this paper demonstrates, quite surprisingly, that clause learning (without being able to get rid of some clauses) can not only help the solver but can oftentimes deteriorate the solution process dramatically. By conducting extensive empirical analysis, we furthermore find that the runtime distributions of CDCL solvers are multimodal. This multimodality can be seen as a reason for the deterioration phenomenon described above. Simultaneously, it also gives an indication of why clause learning in combination with clause deletion is virtually the de facto standard of SAT solving, in spite of this phenomenon. As a final contribution, we show that Weibull mixture distributions can accurately describe the multimodal distributions. Thus, adding new clauses to a base instance has an inherent effect of making runtimes long-tailed. This insight provides an explanation as to why the technique of forgetting clauses is useful in CDCL solvers apart from the optimization of unit propagation speed.

Boosting the Performance of CDCL-Based SAT Solvers by Exploiting Backbones and Backdoors

Boolean structural measures were introduced to explain the high performance of conflict-driven clause-learning (CDCL) SAT solvers on industrial SAT instances. Those considered in this study include measures related to backbones and backdoors: backbone size, backbone frequency, and backdoor size. A key area of research is to improve the performance of CDCL SAT solvers by exploiting these measures. For the purpose of guiding the CDCL SAT solver for branching on backbone and backdoor variables, this study proposes low-overhead heuristics for computing these variables. Through these heuristics, a set of modifications to the Variable State Independent Decaying Sum (VSIDS) decision heuristic is suggested to exploit backbones and backdoors and potentially improve the performance of CDCL SAT solvers. In total, fifteen variants of two competitive base solvers, MapleLCMDistChronoBT-DL-v3 and LSTech, were developed. Empirical evaluation was conducted on 32 industrial families from 2002–2021 SAT competitions. According to the results, modifying the VSIDS heuristic in the base solvers to exploit backbones and backdoors improves its performance. In particular, our new CDCL SAT solver, LSTech_BBsfcr_v1, solved more industrial SAT instances than the winning CDCL SAT solvers in 2020 and 2021 SAT competitions.

Better Decision Heuristics in CDCL through Local Search and Target Phases

On practical applications, state-of-the-art SAT solvers dominantly use the conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) paradigm. An alternative for satisfiable instances is local search solvers, which is more successful on random and hard combinatorial instances. Although there have been attempts to combine these methods in one framework, a tight integration which improves the state of the art on a broad set of application instances has been missing. We present a combination of techniques that achieves such an improvement. Our first contribution is to maximize in a local search fashion the assignment trail in CDCL, by sticking to and extending promising assignments via a technique called target phases. Second, we relax the CDCL framework by again extending promising branches to complete assignments while ignoring conflicts. These assignments are then used as starting point of local search which tries to find improved assignments with fewer unsatisfied clauses. Third, these improved assignments are imported back to the CDCL loop where they are used to determine the value assigned to decision variables. Finally, the conflict frequency of variables in local search can be exploited during variable selection in branching heuristics of CDCL. We implemented these techniques to improve three representative CDCL solvers (Glucose, MapleLcm DistChronoBT, and Kissat). Experiments on benchmarks from the main tracks of the last three SAT Competitions from 2019 to 2021 and an additional benchmark set from spectrum allocation show that the techniques bring significant improvements, particularly and not surprisingly, on satisfiable real-world application instances. We claim that these techniques were essential to the large increase in performance witnessed in the SAT Competition 2020 where Kissat and Relaxed LcmdCbDl NewTech were leading the field followed by CryptoMiniSAT-Ccnr, which also incorporated similar ideas.

On CDCL-Based Proof Systems with the Ordered Decision Strategy

We prove that conflict-driven clause learning SAT-solvers with the ordered decision strategy and the DECISION learning scheme are equivalent to ordered resolution. We also prove that, by replacing this learning scheme with its opposite that stops after the first new clause when backtracking, they become equivalent to general resolution. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first theoretical study of the interplay between specific decision strategies and clause learning. For both results, we allow nondeterminism in the solver's ability to perform unit propagation, conflict analysis, and restarts, in a way that is similar to previous works in the literature. To aid the presentation of our results, and possibly future research, we define a model and language for discussing CDCL-based proof systems that allows for succinct and precise theorem statements.

Solving hybrid Boolean constraints in continuous space via multilinear Fourier expansions

The Boolean SATisfiability problem (SAT) is of central importance in computer science. Although SAT is known to be NP-complete, progress on the engineering side—especially that of Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) and Local Search SAT solvers—has been remarkable. Yet, while SAT solvers, aimed at solving industrial-scale benchmarks in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF), have become quite mature, SAT solvers that are effective on other types of constraints (e.g., cardinality constraints and XORs) are less well-studied; a general approach to handling non-CNF constraints is still lacking.To address the issue above, we design FourierSAT,1 an incomplete SAT solver based on Fourier Analysis (also known as Walsh-Fourier Transform) of Boolean functions, a technique to represent Boolean functions by multilinear polynomials. By such a reduction to continuous optimization, we propose an algebraic framework for solving systems consisting of different types of constraints. The idea is to leverage gradient information to guide the search process in the direction of local improvements. We show this reduction enjoys interesting theoretical properties. Empirical results demonstrate that FourierSAT can be a useful complement to other solvers on certain classes of benchmarks.

Propositional proof systems based on maximum satisfiability

The paper describes the use of dual-rail MaxSAT systems to solve Boolean satisfiability (SAT), namely to determine if a set of clauses is satisfiable. The MaxSAT problem is the problem of satisfying the maximum number of clauses in an instance of SAT. The dual-rail encoding adds extra variables for the complements of variables, and allows encoding an instance of SAT as a Horn MaxSAT problem. We discuss three implementations of dual-rail MaxSAT: core-guided systems, minimal hitting set (MaxHS) systems, and MaxSAT resolution inference systems. All three of these can be more efficient than resolution and thus than conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL). All three systems can give polynomial size refutations for the pigeonhole principle, the doubled pigeonhole principle and the mutilated chessboard principles. The dual-rail MaxHS MaxSat system can give polynomial size proofs of the parity principle. However, dual-rail MaxSAT resolution requires exponential size proofs for the parity principle; this is proved by showing that constant depth Frege augmented with the pigeonhole principle can polynomially simulate dual-rail MaxSAT resolution. Consequently, dual-rail MaxSAT resolution does not simulate cutting planes. We further show that core-guided dual-rail MaxSAT and weighted dual-rail MaxSAT resolution polynomially simulate resolution. Finally, we report the results of experiments with core-guided dual-rail MaxSAT and MaxHS dual-rail MaxSAT showing strong performance by these systems.