Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recognition of Nested Gates in CNF Formulas

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing -- SAT 2015 (SAT 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9340))

Abstract

We present a new algorithm to efficiently extract information about nested functional dependencies between variables of a formula in CNF. Our algorithm uses the relation between gate encodings and blocked sets in CNF formulas. Our notion of “gate” emphasizes this relation. The presented algorithm is central to our new tool, cnf2aig, that produces equisatisfiable and-inverter-graphs (AIGs) from CNF formulas. We compare the novel algorithm to earlier approaches and show that the produced AIG are generally more succinct and use less input variables. As the gate-detection is related to the structure of input formulas, we furthermore analyze the gate-detection before and after applying preprocessing techniques.

This work was partially supported by the SAT Association’s Short-Term Mission (STM) program.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balint, A., Manthey, N.: Boosting the performance of SLS and CDCL solvers by preprocessor tuning. In: Berre, D.L. (ed.) POS 2013. EPiC Series, vol. 29, pp. 1–14. EasyChair (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balyo, T., Fröhlich, A., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Everything you always wanted to know about blocked sets (but were afraid to ask). In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 317–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biere, A., Le Berre, D., Lonca, E., Manthey, N.: Detecting cardinality constraints in CNF. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 285–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_22

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bjesse, P., Kukula, J.H., Damiano, R., Stanion, T., Zhu, Y.: Guiding SAT diagnosis with tree decompositions. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 315–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/321033.321034

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dixon, H.E., Ginsberg, M.L., Luks, E.M., Parkes, A.J.: Generalizing Boolean satisfiability II: Theory (2011). CoRR abs/1109.2134

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11499107_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Falke, S., Merz, F., Sinz, C.: LLBMC: improved bounded model checking of C programs using LLVM (competition contribution). In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013 (ETAPS 2013). LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 623–626. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Fu, Z., Malik, S.: Extracting logic circuit structure from conjunctive normal form descriptions. In: 20th International Conference on VLSI Design (VLSI Design 2007), Sixth International Conference on Embedded Systems (ICES 2007), January 6–10, 2007, Bangalore, India. pp. 37–42 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fu, Z., Yu, Y., Malik, S.: Considering circuit observability don’t cares in CNF satisfiability. In: 2005 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exposition (DATE 2005), March 7–11, 2005, Munich, Germany, pp. 1108–1113 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Blocked clause decomposition. In: McMillan, K., Middeldorp, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-19 2013. LNCS, vol. 8312, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45221-5_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Iser, M., Sinz, C., Taghdiri, M.: Minimizing models for tseitin-encoded SAT instances. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 224–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Iser, M., Taghdiri, M., Sinz, C.: Optimizing MiniSAT variable orderings for the relational model finder kodkod (poster presentation). In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 483–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Järvisalo, M., Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H.: Blocked clause elimination. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Järvisalo, M., Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H.: Simulating circuit-level simplifications on cnf. Journal of Automated Reasoning 49(4), 583–619 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kuehlmann, A., Paruthi, V., Krohm, F., Ganai, M.K.: Robust boolean reasoning for equivalence checking and functional property verification. IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems 21(12), 1377–1394 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Manthey, N.: Coprocessor 2.0 – a flexible CNF simplifier. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 436–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Manthey, N.: Extended resolution in modern SAT solving. In: Joint Automated Reasoning Workshop and Deduktionstreffen (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Manthey, N., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Automated reencoding of boolean formulas. In: Biere, A., Nahir, A., Vos, T. (eds.) HVC. LNCS, vol. 7857, pp. 102–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39611-3_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Mihal, A., Teig, S.: A constraint satisfaction approach for programmable logic detailed placement. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 208–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Grégoire, R.O.É., Saïs, L.: Recovering and exploiting structural knowledge from CNF formulas. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, p. 185. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 2(3), 293–304 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Rintanen, J.: Engineering efficient planners with SAT. In: ECAI, pp. 684–689 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sinz, C.: Visualizing SAT instances and runs of the DPLL algorithm. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(2), 219–243 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Boy de la Tour, T.: An optimality result for clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 14(4), 283–301 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Slisenko, A.O. (ed.) Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, pp. 115–125 (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Williams, R., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Backdoors to typical case complexity. In: IJCAI, pp. 1173–1178 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Markus Iser & Carsten Sinz

  2. Dresden University of Technology (TUD), Dresden, Germany

    Norbert Manthey

Authors
  1. Markus Iser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norbert Manthey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carsten Sinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carsten Sinz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Algorithms, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA

    Marijn Heule

  2. Trusted Systems Research Group, Fort Meade, Texas, USA

    Sean Weaver

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Iser, M., Manthey, N., Sinz, C. (2015). Recognition of Nested Gates in CNF Formulas. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing -- SAT 2015. SAT 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9340. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24317-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24318-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation