Skip to main content

Classifying and Propagating Parity Constraints

  • Conference paper
Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 7514))

Abstract

Parity constraints, common in application domains such as circuit verification, bounded model checking, and logical cryptanalysis, are not necessarily most efficiently solved if translated into conjunctive normal form. Thus, specialized parity reasoning techniques have been developed in the past for propagating parity constraints. This paper studies the questions of deciding whether unit propagation or equivalence reasoning is enough to achieve full propagation in a given parity constraint set. Efficient approximating tests for answering these questions are developed. It is also shown that equivalence reasoning can be simulated by unit propagation by adding a polynomial amount of redundant parity constraints to the problem. It is proven that without using additional variables, an exponential number of new parity constraints would be needed in the worst case. The presented classification and propagation methods are evaluated experimentally.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Marques-Silva, J., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In: Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Li, C.M.: Integrating equivalency reasoning into Davis-Putnam procedure. In: Proc. AAAI/IAAI 2000, pp. 291–296. AAAI Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Li, C.M.: Equivalency reasoning to solve a class of hard SAT problems. Information Processing Letters 76(1-2), 75–81 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumgartner, P., Massacci, F.: The Taming of the (X)OR. In: Lloyd, J., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1861, pp. 508–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Li, C.M.: Equivalent literal propagation in the DLL procedure. Discrete Applied Mathematics 130(2), 251–276 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Heule, M., van Maaren, H.: Aligning CNF- and Equivalence-Reasoning. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Heule, M., Dufour, M., van Zwieten, J., van Maaren, H.: March_eq: Implementing Additional Reasoning into an Efficient Look-Ahead SAT Solver. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, J.: Building a Hybrid SAT Solver via Conflict-Driven, Look-Ahead and XOR Reasoning Techniques. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 298–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Soos, M., Nohl, K., Castelluccia, C.: Extending SAT Solvers to Cryptographic Problems. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 244–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Laitinen, T., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Extending clause learning DPLL with parity reasoning. In: Proc. ECAI 2010, pp. 21–26. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Soos, M.: Enhanced Gaussian elimination in DPLL-based SAT solvers. In: Pragmatics of SAT, Edinburgh, Scotland, GB, p. 1 (July 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Laitinen, T., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Equivalence class based parity reasoning with DPLL(XOR). In: Proc. ICTAI 2011, pp. 649–658. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Laitinen, T., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I.: Conflict-Driven XOR-Clause Learning. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 383–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: From an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Barrett, C., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S.A., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability modulo theories. In: Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Laitinen, T., Junttila, T., Niemelä, I. (2012). Classifying and Propagating Parity Constraints. In: Milano, M. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7514. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_28

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33557-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33558-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics