Skip to main content

Complexity Issues in the Davis and Putnam Scheme

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications (AIMSA 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1904))

  • 320 Accesses

Abstract

The Davis and Putnam (D&P) scheme has been intensively studied during this last decade. Nowadays, its good empirical perfor- mances are well-known. Here, we deal with its theoretical side which has been relatively less studied until now. Thus, we propose a strictely lin- ear D&P algorithm for the most well known tractable classes: Horn-SAT and 2-SAT. Specifically, the strictely linearity of our proposed D&P algo- rithm improves significantly the previous existing complexities that were quadratic for Horn-SAT and even exponential for 2-SAT. As a conse- quence, the D&P algorithm designed to deal with the general SAT problem runs as fast (in terms of complexity) as the specialised algorithms designed to work exclusively with a specific tractable SAT subclass.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. Ausiello and G. F. Italiano. Online algorithms for poly normally solvable satisfiability problems. Journal of Logic Programming, 10(1), 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C.M. Li and Anbulagan. Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 15th IJCAI, pages 366–371, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.M. Crawford and L. D. Auton. Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems. In Proc. of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-93, pages 21–27, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem proving. Comunnications of the ACM, 5:394–397, 1962.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM, 7:394–397, 1960.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. G. Davydov, I. Davydova, and H. K. Buning. An efficient algorithm for the minimal unsatisfiability problem for a classe of cnf. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 23:229–245, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. R. Dechter and I. Rish. Rirectional resolution: the davis and putnam procedure revisited. In Proceedings of Knowledge Representattion International Conference, KR-94, pages 134–145, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. W.F. Dowling and J. H. Gallier. Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of horn prepositional formulae. Journal of Logic Programming, 3:267–284, 1984.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. D. Dubois, P. Andre, Y. Boufkhad, and J. Carlier. Sat versus unsat. In Proceedings of the Second DIM ACS Challenge, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Z. Galil. On the complexity of Regular Resolution and the Davis-Putnam procedure. Theoretical Computer Sicence, 4:23–46, 1977.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. J.N. Hooker and V. Vinay. Branching rules for satisfiability. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 15:359–383, 1995.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. J.M. Crawford and L. D. Auton. Experimental Results on the Crossover Point in random 3-SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 81:31–57, 1996.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. R.E. Jeroslow and J. Wang. Solving prepositional satisfiability problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1:167–187, 1990.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Kautz and B. Selman. Planing as satisfiability. In Proceeding of the 10th EC AI, pages 359–363. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Rauzy. Polynomial restrictions of sat: What ca be done with an efficient implementation of the davis and putnam’s procedure. In U. Mntanari and F. Rossi, editors, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP’95, volume 976 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 515–532. Fisrt International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Cassis, France, Springer-verlag, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. T.E. Tarjan. Amortized computational complexity. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods, 6:306–318, 1985.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. H. Zhang. Sato: An efficient prepositional prover. In proceedings of the 13th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 272–275, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. Zhang and M. E. Stickel. An efficient algorithm for unit propagation. In International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. H Zhang and M. E. Stickel. Implementing the davis-putnam algorithm by tries. Technical report, The University of Iowa, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Escalada-Imaz, G., Torres Velázquez, R. (2000). Complexity Issues in the Davis and Putnam Scheme. In: Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications. AIMSA 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1904. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45331-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45331-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41044-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45331-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics