  The evaluation of incomplete satisfiability solvers depends critically on the
availability of hard satisfiable instances. A plausible source of such
instances consists of random k-SAT formulas whose clauses are chosen uniformly
from among all clauses satisfying some randomly chosen truth assignment A.
Unfortunately, instances generated in this manner tend to be relatively easy
and can be solved efficiently by practical heuristics. Roughly speaking, as the
formula's density increases, for a number of different algorithms, A acts as a
stronger and stronger attractor. Motivated by recent results on the geometry of
the space of satisfying truth assignments of random k-SAT and NAE-k-SAT
formulas, we introduce a simple twist on this basic model, which appears to
dramatically increase its hardness. Namely, in addition to forbidding the
clauses violated by the hidden assignment A, we also forbid the clauses
violated by its complement, so that both A and complement of A are satisfying.
It appears that under this "symmetrization'' the effects of the two attractors
largely cancel out, making it much harder for algorithms to find any truth
assignment. We give theoretical and experimental evidence supporting this
assertion.
