Skip to main content

Partial Implicit Unfolding in the Davis-Putnam Procedure for Quantified Boolean Formulae

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2250))

Abstract

Quantified Boolean formulae offer a means of representing many propositional formula exponentially more compactly than propositional logic. Recent work on automating reasoning with QBF has concentrated on extending the Davis-Putnam procedure to handle QBF. Although the resulting procedures make it possible to evaluate QBF that could not be efficiently reduced to propositional logic (requiring worst-case exponential space), its efficiency often lags much behind the reductive approach when the reduction is possible. We attribute this inefficiency to the fact that many of the unit resolution steps possible in the reduced (propositional logic) formula are not performed in the corresponding QBF. To combine the conciseness of the QBF representation and the stronger inferences available in the unquantified representation, we introduce a stronger propagation algorithm for QBF which could be seen as partially unfolding the universal quantification. The algorithm runs in worst-case exponential time, like the reduction of QBF to propositional logic, but needs only polynomial space. By restricting the algorithm the exponential behavior can be avoided while still preserving many of the useful inferences.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bengt Aspvall, Michael F. Plass, and Robert Endre Tarjan. A linear time algorithmfor testing the truth of certain quantified Boolean formulas. InformationProcessing Letters, 8(3):121–123, 1979. Erratum in 14(4):195, June 1982.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Tom Bylander. The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning.Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2):165–204, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Cadoli, A. Giovanardi, and M. Schaerf. An algorithm to evaluate quantified Boolean formulae. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98) andthe Tenth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-98), pages 262–267. AAAI Press, July 1998.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Rainer Feldmann, Burkhard Monien, and Stefan Schamberger. A distributed algorithm to evaluate quantified Boolean formulae. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000) andthe Twelfth Conferenceon Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-2000), pages 285–290. AAAI Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ian Gent and Toby Walsh. Beyond NP: the QSAT phase transition. In Proceedingsof the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99) and the Eleventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-99), pages 648–653. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Matthew L. Ginsberg and Andrew J. Parkes. Satisfiability algorithms and finite quantification. In Anthony G. Cohn, Fausto Giunchiglia, and Bart Selman, editors,Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (KR2000), pages 690–701. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Enrico Giunchiglia, Massimo Narizzano, and Armando Tacchella. An analysis ofbackjumping and trivial truth in quantified Boolean formulas satisfiability. InF. Esposito, editor, AI*AI 2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 7th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings, number 2175 inLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 111–122. Springer-Verlag, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Pushing the envelope: planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence andthe Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, pages 1194–1201, Menlo Park, California, August 1996.AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hans Kleine Büning, Marek Karpinski, and Andreas Flögel. Resolution for quantified Boolean formulas. Information andComputation, 117:12–18, 1995.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Reinhold Letz. Advances in decision procedures for quantified Boolean formulas. working notes of the IJCAR 2001workshop on Theory and Applications of Quantified Boolean Formulas, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chu Min Li and Anbulagan. Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 366–371, Nagoya, Japan, August 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Michael L. Littman. Initial experiments in stochastic satisfiability. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99) and the Eleventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-99), pages 667–672. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Antonio Lozano and José L. Balcázar. The complexity of graph problems for succinctly represented graphs. In Manfred Nagl, editor, Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 15th International Workshop, WG’89, number 411 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 277–286, Castle Rolduc, The Netherlands,1990. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Christos H. Papadimitriou and Mihalis Yannakakis. A note on succinct representations of graphs. Information andControl, 71:181–185, 1986.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. David A. Plaisted, Armin Biere, and Yunshan Zhu. A satisfiability procedure for quantified Boolean formulae, 2001. unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Patrick Prosser. Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Computational Intelligence, 9(3):268–299, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jussi Rintanen. A planning algorithm not based on directional search. In A. G. Cohn, L. K. Schubert, and S. C. Shapiro, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation andR easoning: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (KR’98), pages 617–624. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jussi Rintanen. Constructing conditional plans by a theorem-prover. Journal ofArtificial Intelligence Research, 10:323–352, 1999.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Jussi Rintanen. Improvements to the evaluation of quantified Boolean formulae.In Thomas Dean, editor, Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1192–1197. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, August 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roberto Sebastiani. Personal communication, Breckenridge, Colorado, April 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rintanen, J. (2001). Partial Implicit Unfolding in the Davis-Putnam Procedure for Quantified Boolean Formulae. In: Nieuwenhuis, R., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2250. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45653-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45653-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42957-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45653-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics