Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Three Is a Crowd: SAT, SMT and CLP on a Chessboard

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10702))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Constraint solving technology for declarative formal models has made considerable progress in recent years, and has many applications such as animation of high-level specifications, test case generation, or symbolic model checking. In this article we evaluate the idea of using very high-level declarative models themselves to express constraint satisfaction problems. In particular, we study an old mathematical puzzle from 100 years ago, called the crowded chessboard. We study various high-level and low-level encodings and solutions, covering SAT, SMT and CLP-based solutions of the puzzle. Additionally, we present a new technique combining SAT-solving with CLP which is able to solve the puzzle efficiently.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some even argue that formal specifications should be non-executable [11].

References

  1. Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Asín, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: Cardinality networks and their applications. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 167–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y.: Efficient CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45193-8_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Barrett, C., Conway, C.L., Deters, M., Hadarean, L., Jovanović, D., King, T., Reynolds, A., Tinelli, C.: CVC4. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 171–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlsson, M., Ottosson, G., Carlson, B.: An open-ended finite domain constraint solver. In: Glaser, H., Hartel, P., Kuchen, H. (eds.) PLILP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1292, pp. 191–206. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0033845

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Chlond, M.J.: IP modeling of chessboard placements and related puzzles. INFORMS Trans. Educ. 2(2), 56–57 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Déharbe, D., Fontaine, P., Guyot, Y., Voisin, L.: SMT solvers for Rodin. In: Derrick, J., Fitzgerald, J., Gnesi, S., Khurshid, S., Leuschel, M., Reeves, S., Riccobene, E. (eds.) ABZ 2012. LNCS, vol. 7316, pp. 194–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30885-7_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Dudeney, H.E.: Amusements in Mathematics (1917). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16713

  10. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Hayes, I., Jones, C.: Specifications are not (necessarily) executable. Softw. Eng. J. 4(6), 330–338 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hooker, J.N.: Logic-Based Methods for Optimization: Combining Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction. John Wiley, New York (2000)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Krings, S., Leuschel, M.: Proof assisted symbolic model checking for B and event-B. In: Butler, M., Schewe, K.-D., Mashkoor, A., Biro, M. (eds.) ABZ 2016. LNCS, vol. 9675, pp. 135–150. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33600-8_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Leuschel, M.: Formal model-based constraint solving and document generation. In: Ribeiro, L., Lecomte, T. (eds.) SBMF 2016. LNCS, vol. 10090, pp. 3–20. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49815-7_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Leuschel, M., Butler, M.J.: ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. STTT 10(2), 185–203 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leuschel, M., Schneider, D.: Towards B as a high-level constraint modelling language. In: Ait Ameur, Y., Schewe, K.D. (eds.) ABZ 2014. LNCS, vol. 8477, pp. 101–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43652-3_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo, M., Li, C.-M., Xiao, F., Manyà, F., Lü, Z.: An effective learnt clause minimization approach for CDCL SAT solvers. In: Proceedings IJCAI-2017, pp. 703–711 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Merz, S., Vanzetto, H.: Automatic verification of TLA+ proof obligations with SMT solvers. In: Bjørner, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7180, pp. 289–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28717-6_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. OscaR Team. OscaR: Scala in OR (2012). https://bitbucket.org/oscarlib/oscar

  20. Plagge, D., Leuschel, M.: Validating B, Z and TLA + using ProB and Kodkod. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Savary, A., Frappier, M., Leuschel, M., Lanet, J.-L.: Model-based robustness testing in Event-B using mutation. In: Calinescu, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SEFM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9276, pp. 132–147. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22969-0_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Schimpf, J., Shen, K.: ECLiPSe - from LP to CLP. TPLP 12(1–2), 127–156 (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider, D., Leuschel, M., Witt, T.: Model-based problem solving for university timetable validation and improvement. In: Bjørner, N., de Boer, F. (eds.) FM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9109, pp. 487–495. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19249-9_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Shapiro, S.C.: The jobs puzzle: a challenge for logical expressibility and automated reasoning. In: AAAI SS (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shen, K., Schimpf, J.: Eplex: harnessing mathematical programming solvers for constraint logic programming. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 622–636. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11564751_46

    Chapter  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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71209-1_49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informatik, Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Sebastian Krings, Michael Leuschel & Philipp Körner

  2. Department of Engineering, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Stefan Hallerstede & Miran Hasanagić

Authors
  1. Sebastian Krings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Leuschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philipp Körner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Hallerstede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miran Hasanagić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Krings .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Francesco Calimeri

  2. Computer Science Department, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

    Kevin Hamlen

  3. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Nicola Leone

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Krings, S., Leuschel, M., Körner, P., Hallerstede, S., Hasanagić, M. (2018). Three Is a Crowd: SAT, SMT and CLP on a Chessboard. In: Calimeri, F., Hamlen, K., Leone, N. (eds) Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. PADL 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10702. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73305-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73305-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73304-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73305-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics