Abstract
Propositional logic decision procedures [1,2,3,4,5,6] lie at the heart of many applications in hard- and software verification, artificial intelligence and automatic theorem proving [7,8,9,10,11,12]. They have been used to successfully solve problems of considerable size. In many practical applications, however, it is not sufficient to obtain a yes/no answer from the decision procedure. Either a model, representing a sample solution, or a justification, why the formula possesses none is required. So, e.g. in declarative modeling or product configuration [9,10] an inconsistent specification given by a customer corresponds to an unsatisfiable problem instance. To guide the customer in correcting his specification, a justification why it is erroneous can be of great help. In the context of model checking proofs are used, e.g., for abstraction refinement [11], or approximative image computations through interpolants [13]. In general, proofs are also important for certification through proof checking [14].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. In: JACM 7 (1960)
Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM 5(7) (1962)
Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP — a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proc. ICCAD 1996 (1996)
Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proc. DAC 2001 (2001)
Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In: Proc. DATE 2002 (2002)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Velev, M., Bryant, R.: Effective use of boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and VLIW microprocessors. J. Symb. Comput. 35(2) (2003)
Shlyakhter, I., Seater, R., Jackson, D., Sridharan, M., Taghdiri, M.: Debugging overconstrained declarative models using unsatisfiable cores. In: Proc. ASE 2003 (2003)
Sinz, C., Kaiser, A., Küchlin, W.: Formal methods for the validation of automotive product configuration data. AI EDAM 17(1) (2003)
McMillan, K., Amla, N.: Automatic abstraction without counterexamples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) ETAPS 2003 and TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Xie, Y., Aiken, A.: Scalable error detection using boolean satisfiability. In: Proc. POPL 2005 (2005)
McMillan, K.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: Proc. DATE 2003 (2003)
Biere, A.: Booleforce (2006), Available at http://fmv.jku.at/booleforce
Jussila, T., Sinz, C., Biere, A.: Extended resolution proofs for symbolic SAT solving with quantification. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 22 (2004)
Dershowitz, N., Hanna, Z., Nadel, A.: A scalable algorithm for minimal unsatisfiable core extraction. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Robinson, J.A.: A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. JACM 12 (1965)
Amjad, H.: Compressing propositional refuations. In: Proc. AVoCS 2006 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sinz, C. (2007). Compressing Propositional Proofs by Common Subproof Extraction. In: Moreno Díaz, R., Pichler, F., Quesada Arencibia, A. (eds) Computer Aided Systems Theory – EUROCAST 2007. EUROCAST 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4739. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75867-9_69
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75867-9_69
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75866-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75867-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)