Abstract
Structural logical formulas sometimes yield a substantial fraction of so called equivalence clauses after translation to CNF. Probably the best known example of this is the parity-family. Large instances of such CNF formulas cannot be solved in reasonable time if no detection of, and extra reasoning with, these clauses is incorporated. That is, in solving these formulas, there is a more or less separate algorithmic device dealing with the equivalence clauses, called equivalence reasoning, and another dealing with the remaining clauses. In this paper we propose a way to align these two reasoning devices by introducing parameters for which we establish optimal values over a variety of existing benchmarks. We obtain a truly convincing speed-up in solving such formulas with respect to the best solving methods existing so far.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Le Berre, D., Simon, L.: The essentials of the SAT 2003 Competition. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 452–467. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Crawford, J.M., Kearns, M.J., Schapire, R.E.: The Minimal Disagreement parity problem as a hard satisfiability problem. Draft version (1995)
Heule, M.J.H., van Zwieten, J.E., Dufour, M., van Maaren, H.: March_eq, Implementing Efficiency and Additional Reasoning in a Look-ahead SAT Solver. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Kullmann, O.: Investigating the behaviour of a SAT solver on random formulas. In: Submitted to Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2002)
Li, C.M.: Equivalent literal propagation in the DLL procedure. The Renesse issue on satisfiability (2000). Discrete Appl. Math. 130(2), 251–276 (2003)
Simon, L., Le Berre, D., Hirsch, E.: The SAT 2002 competition. In: Accepted for publication in Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), vol. 43, pp. 343–378 (2005)
Simon, L.: Competition homepage. In: Sat 2003 (2003), http://www.lri.fr/~simon/contest03/results/
Simon, L.: Competition homepage. In: Sat 2004 (2004), http://www.lri.fr/~simon/contest/results/
Ostrowski, R., Gregoire, E., Mazure, B., Sais, L.: Recovering and exploiting structural knowledge from CNF formulas. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 185–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Purdom, P., Sabry, A.: CNF Generator for Factoring Problems, http://www.cs.indiana.edu/cgi-pub/sabry/cnf.htm
Warners, J.P., van Maaren, H.: A two phase algorithm for solving a class of hard satisfiability problems. Oper. Res. Lett. 23(3-5), 81–88 (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Heule, M., van Maaren, H. (2005). Aligning CNF- and Equivalence-Reasoning. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. SAT 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3542. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11527695_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11527695_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27829-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31580-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)