Abstract
Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs) present the next big challenge for automated propositional reasoning. Not surprisingly, most of the present day QBF solvers are extensions of successful propositional satisfiability algorithms (SAT solvers). They directly integrate the lessons learned from SAT research, thus avoiding re-inventing the wheel. In particular, they use the standard conjunctive normal form (CNF) augmented with layers of variable quantification for modeling tasks as QBF. We argue that while CNF is well suited to “existential reasoning” as demonstrated by the success of modern SAT solvers, it is far from ideal for “universal reasoning” needed by QBF. The CNF restriction imposes an inherent asymmetry in QBF and artificially creates issues that have led to complex solutions, which, in retrospect, were unnecessary and sub-optimal. We take a step back and propose a new approach to QBF modeling based on a game-theoretic view of problems and on a dual CNF-DNF (disjunctive normal form) representation that treats the existential and universal parts of a problem symmetrically. It has several advantages: (1) it is generic, compact, and simpler, (2) unlike fully non-clausal encodings, it preserves the benefits of pure CNF and leverages the support for DNF already present in many QBF solvers, (3) it doesn’t use the so-called indicator variables for conversion into CNF, thus circumventing the associated illegal search space issue, and (4) our QBF solver based on the dual encoding (Duaffle) consistently outperforms the best solvers by two orders of magnitude on a hard class of benchmarks, even without using standard learning techniques.
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
Ansotegui, C., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: The Achilles’ heel of QBF. In: 20th AAAI, Pittsburgh, PA, July 2005, pp. 275–281 (2005)
Benedetti, M.: Extracting certificates from quantified Boolean formulas. In: 19th IJCAI, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2005, pp. 47–53 (2005)
Benedetti, M.: sKizzo: a suite to evaluate and certify QBFs. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) CADE 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3632, pp. 369–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Biere, A.: Resolve and expand. In: H. Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 59–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Cadoli, M., Schaerf, M., Giovanardi, A., Giovanardi, M.: An algorithm to evaluate QBFs and its experimental evaluation. J. Auto. Reas. 28(2), 101–142 (2002)
Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. CACM 5, 394–397 (1962)
Gent, I.P., Rowley, A.G.: Encoding Connect-4 using quantified Boolean formulae. In: Work. Modelling and Reform. CSP, Ireland, pp. 78–93 (September 2003)
Giunchiglia, E., Narizzano, M., Tacchella, A.: QUBE: A symtem for deciding QBFs satisfiability. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 364–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Proc. 10th Euro. Conf. on AI, Vienna, Austria, August 1992, pp. 359–363 (1992)
Letz, R.: Lemma and model caching in decision procedures for quantified Boolean formulas. In: Egly, U., Fermüller, C. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2381, pp. 160–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Madhusudan, P., Nam, W., Alur, R.: Symbolic computation techniques for solving games. Elec. Notes TCS 89(4) (2003)
Narizzano, M., Tacchella, A.: (Organizers). QBF 2005 evaluation (June 2005), http://www.qbflib.org/qbfeval/2005
Otwell, C., Remshagen, A., Truemper, K.: An effective QBF solver for planning problems. In: Proc. MSV/AMCS, Las Vegas, NV, June 2004, pp. 311–316 (2004)
Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)
Rintanen, J.: Improvements to the evaluation of quantified Boolean formulae. In: 16th IJCAI, Stockholm, Sweden, July 1999, pp. 1192–1197 (1999)
Rintanen, J.: Partial implicit unfolding in the Davis-Putnam procedure for quantified Boolean formulae. In: Nieuwenhuis, R., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2250, pp. 362–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Rintanen, J.: Constructing conditional plans by a theorem prover. JAIR 10, 323–352 (1999)
Stockmeyer, L.J., Meyer, A.R.: Word problems requiring exponential time. In: Conf. Record of 5th STOC, Austin, TX, April–May 1973, pp. 1–9 (1973)
Zhang, L.: Solving QBF by combining conjunctive and disjunctive normal forms. In: 21th AAAI, Boston, MA July 2006 (to appear)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Conflict driven learning in a quantified Boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD, San Jose, CA, November 2002, pp. 442–449 (2002)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Towards a symmetric treatment of satisfaction and conflicts in QBF evaluation. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sabharwal, A., Ansotegui, C., Gomes, C.P., Hart, J.W., Selman, B. (2006). QBF Modeling: Exploiting Player Symmetry for Simplicity and Efficiency. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2006. SAT 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4121. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11814948_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11814948_35
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-37206-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37207-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)