Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Toward leaner binary-clause reasoning in a satisfiability solver

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Binary-clause reasoning has been shown to reduce the size of the search space on many satisfiability problems, but has often been so expensive that run-time was higher than that of a simpler procedure that explored a larger space. The method of Sharir for detecting strongly connected components in a directed graph can be adapted to performing “ lean” resolution on a set of binary clauses. Beyond simply detecting unsatisfiability, the goal is to find implied equivalent literals, implied unit clauses, and implied binary clauses.

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. B. Aspvall, M. Plass and R. Tarjan, A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified Boolean formulas, Information Processing Letters 8(3) (1979) 121–123.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. S. Baase and A. Van Gelder, Computer Algorithms: Introduction to Design and Analysis, 3rd edn (Addison-Wesley, 2000).

  3. F. Bacchus, Exploring the computational tradeoff of more reasoning and less searching, in: Proc. of Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, Cincinnati, OH (2002) pp. 7–16.

  4. R.J. Bayardo, Jr. and R.C. Schrag, Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in: Proc. of 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97) (1997) pp. 203–208.

  5. A. Billionnet and A. Sutter, An efficient algorithm for the 3-satisfiability problem, Operations Research Letters 12 (July 1992) 29–36.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

  7. M. Davis, G. Logemann and D. Loveland, A machine program for theorem-proving, Communications of the ACM 5 (1962) 394–397.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. M. Davis and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 7 (1960) 201–215.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. A. del Val, Simplifying binary propositional theories into connected components twice as fast, in: Proc. of 8th Int’l Conf. on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (Springer, 2001) pp. 389–403.

  10. S.-J. Lee and D.A. Plaisted, Eliminating duplication with the hyper-linking strategy, Journal of Automated Reasoning 9(1) (1992) 25–42.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. C.M. Li, Integrating equivalency reasoning into Davis-Putnam procedure, in: AAAI (2000).

  12. M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: Proc. of 39th Design Automation Conference (June 2001).

  13. D. Pretolani, Efficiency and stability of hypergraph SAT algorithms, in: Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge, eds. D.S. Johnson and M. Trick, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 26 (American Mathematical Society, 1995).

  14. M. Sharir, A strong-connectivity algorithm and its application in data flow analysis, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 7(1) (1981) 67–72.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. J.P. Silva and K.A. Sakallah, GRASP — a new search algorithm for satisfiability, in: Proc. of IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Computer-Aided Design (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996) pp. 220–227.

  16. A. Van Gelder, Toward leaner binary-clause reasoning in a satisfiability solver (extended abstract), in: Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, Cincinnati, OH (2002) pp. 43–53.

  17. A. Van Gelder, Extracting (easily) checkable proofs from a satisfiability solver that employs both preorder and postorder resolution, in: Proc. of 17th Int’l Symposium on AI and Mathematics, Ft. Lauderdale, FL (2002). Also available at ftp://ftp.cse.ucsc.edu/pub/avg/CBJ/sat-pre-post.ps.gz.

  18. A. Van Gelder and Y.K. Tsuji, Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing, in: Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge, eds. D.S. Johnson and M. Trick, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 26 (American Mathematical Society, 1996). Also at ftp://ftp.cse.ucsc.edu/pub/avg/kclose-tr.ps.gz.

  19. H. Zhang, SATO: An efficient propositional prover, in: Proc. of 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction (1997) pp. 272-275.

  20. L. Zhang, C. Madigan, M. Moskewicz and S. Malik, Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver, in: ICCAD (November 2001).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, SOE, University of California, 95064, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Allen Van Gelder

Authors
  1. Allen Van Gelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Gelder, A. Toward leaner binary-clause reasoning in a satisfiability solver. Ann Math Artif Intell 43, 239–253 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-0433-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-0433-5

Keywords