Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Automated Deduction

CADE 2013: Automated Deduction – CADE-24 pp 345–359Cite as

Verifying Refutations with Extended Resolution

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7898))

Abstract

Modern SAT solvers use preprocessing and inprocessing techniques that are not solely based on resolution; existing unsatisfiability proof formats do not support SAT solvers using such techniques. We present a new proof format for checking unsatisfiability proofs produced by SAT solvers that use techniques such as extended resolution and blocked clause addition. Our new format was designed with three goals: proofs should be easy to generate, proofs should be compact, and validating proofs must be simple. We show how existing preprocessors and solvers can be modified to generate proofs in our new format. Additionally, we implemented a mechanically-verified proof checker in ACL2 and a proof checker in C for the proposed format.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Goldberg, E.I., Prasad, M.R., Brayton, R.K.: Using SAT for combinational equivalence checking. In: DATE, pp. 114–121 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mishchenko, A., Chatterjee, S., Brayton, R.K., Eén, N.: Improvements to combinational equivalence checking. In: Hassoun, S. (ed.) ICCAD, pp. 836–843. ACM (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgartner, J., Mony, H., Paruthi, V., Kanzelman, R., Janssen, G.: Scalable sequential equivalence checking across arbitrary design transformations. In: ICCD. IEEE (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kaiss, D., Skaba, M., Hanna, Z., Khasidashvili, Z.: Industrial strength SAT-based alignability algorithm for hardware equivalence verification. In: FMCAD, pp. 20–26. IEEE Computer Society (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of bdds. In: DAC, pp. 317–320 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, Y., Safarpour, S., Marques-Silva, J.P., Veneris, A.G.: Automated design debugging with maximum satisfiability. IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems 29(11), 1804–1817 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brummayer, R., Lonsing, F., Biere, A.: Automated testing and debugging of SAT and QBF solvers. In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S. (eds.) SAT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6175, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating sat solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: DATE, pp. 10880–10885 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Van Gelder, A.: Verifying rup proofs of propositional unsatisfiability. In: ISAIM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Darbari, A., Fischer, B., Marques-Silva, J.: Industrial-strength certified SAT solving through verified SAT proof checking. In: Cavalcanti, A., Deharbe, D., Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) ICTAC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6255, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldberg, E.I., Novikov, Y.: Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for cnf formulas. In: DATE, pp. 10886–10891 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Automation of Reasoning 2, pp. 466–483. Springer (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Audemard, G., Katsirelos, G., Simon, L.: A restriction of extended resolution for clause learning SAT solvers. In: Fox, M., Poole, D. (eds.) AAAI. AAAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Manthey, N., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Automated reencoding of boolean formulas. In: Proceedings of Haifa Verification Conference 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39, 297–308 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Cook, S.A.: A short proof of the pigeon hole principle using extended resolution. SIGACT News 8(4), 28–32 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sinz, C., Biere, A.: Extended resolution proofs for conjoining bdds. In: Grigoriev, D., Harrison, J., Hirsch, E.A. (eds.) CSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 3967, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. 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, pp. 54–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Kullmann, O.: On a generalization of extended resolution. Discrete Applied Mathematics 96-97, 149–176 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Järvisalo, M., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Inprocessing rules. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7364, pp. 355–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.S.: Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.A.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 44(1), 36–50 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Marques-Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: 4. In: Conflict-Driven Clause Learning SAT Solvers. Handbook of Satisfiability, pp. 131–153. IOS Press (February 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. JAIR 22, 319–351 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 34(1), 209–219 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Bonet, M.L., John, K.S.: Efficiently calculating evolutionary tree measures using SAT. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 4–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern sat solvers. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 399–404 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas, Austin, USA

    Marijn J. H. Heule, Warren A. Hunt Jr. & Nathan Wetzler

Authors
  1. Marijn J. H. Heule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Warren A. Hunt Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathan Wetzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Verona, Strada Le Grazie 15, 37134, Verona, Italy

    Maria Paola Bonacina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Heule, M.J.H., Hunt, W.A., Wetzler, N. (2013). Verifying Refutations with Extended Resolution. In: Bonacina, M.P. (eds) Automated Deduction – CADE-24. CADE 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7898. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38573-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38574-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation