Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Evaluating Search Heuristics and Optimization Techniques in Propositional Satisfiability

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2083))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the experimental evaluation of several state-of-the-art search heuristics and optimization techniques in propositional satisFIability (SAT). The test set consists of random 3CNF formulas as well as real world instances from planning, scheduling, circuit analysis, bounded model checking, and security protocols. All the heuristics and techniques have been implemented in a new library for SAT, called SIM. The comparison is fair because in sim the selected heuristics and techniques are realized on a common platform. The comparison is significative because sim as a solver performs very well when compared to other state- of-the-art solvers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

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. J. Gu, P. W. Purdom, J. Franco, and B. W. Wah. Algorithms for the satisfiability (sat) problem: A survey. In Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 19–153. AMS, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. G. Mitchell, B. Selman, and H. J. Levesque. Hard and Easy Distributions for SAT Problems. In Proc. of AAAI, pages 459–465. AAAI Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Franco and M. Paull. Probabilistic analysis of the Davis-Putnam procedure for solving the satisfiability problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 5:77–87, 1983.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bart Selman, Henry Kautz, and David McAllester. Ten Challenges in Propositional Reasoning and Search. In Proc. of IJCAI, pages 50–54. Morgan-Kauffmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Massacci and Marraro. Logical Cryptanalysis as a SAT Problem. JAR: Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chu Min Li. Integrating Equivalency Reasoning into Davis-Putnam Procedure. In Proc. of AAAI. AAAI Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. E. Uribe and M. E. Stickel. Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams and the Davis-Putnam Procedure. In Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Constraints in Computational Logics, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. In Proceedings of TACAS, volume 1579 of LNCS, pages 193–207. Springer Verlag, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Zhang and M. E. Stickel. Implementing the Davis-Putnam Method. In Highlights of Satisfiability Research in the Year 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. J. Bayardo, Jr. and R. C. Schrag. Using CSP Look-Back Techniques to Solve Real-World SAT instances. In Proc. of AAAI, pages 203–208. AAAI Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chu Min Li and Anbulagan. Heuristics Based on Unit Propagation for Satisfiability Problems. In Proc. of IJCAI, pages 366–371. Morgan-Kauffmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jon W. Freeman. Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. Zhang. SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In Proc. of CADE, volume 1249 of LNAI, pages 272–275. Springer Verlag, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem proving. Journal of the ACM, 5(7):394–397, 1962.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, and R. R. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Liberatore. On the complexity of choosing the branching literal in DPLL. Artificial Intelligence, 116(1-2):315–326, 2000.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. R. Dechter, I. Meiri, and J. Pearl. Temporal Constraint Networks. Artificial Intelligence, 49:61–95, 1991.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. F. Copty, L. Fix, E. Giunchiglia, G. Kamhi, A. Tacchella, and M. Vardi. Benefits of Bounded Model Checking at an Industrial Setting. In Proc. of CAV, LNCS. Springer Verlag, 2001. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIST, Università di Genova, Viale Causa, 13, 16145, Genova, Italy

    Enrico Giunchiglia, Massimo Maratea, Armando Tacchella & Davide Zambonin

Authors
  1. Enrico Giunchiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimo Maratea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Armando Tacchella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Davide Zambonin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Automated Reasoning Project and Department of Computer Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Rajeev Goré

  2. AG Theoretische Informatik und Logik, Institut für Computersprachen, Technische Universität Wien, Favoritenstr. 9, E185-2, 1040, Wien, Austria

    Alexander Leitsch

  3. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 80290, München, Germany

    Tobias Nipkow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., Tacchella, A., Zambonin, D. (2001). Evaluating Search Heuristics and Optimization Techniques in Propositional Satisfiability. In: Goré, R., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds) Automated Reasoning. IJCAR 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2083. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45744-5_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45744-5_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42254-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation