Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Producing and verifying extremely large propositional refutations

Have your cake and eat it too

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

Abstract

The importance of producing a certificate of unsatisfiability is increasingly recognized for high performance propositional satisfiability solvers. The leading solvers develop a conflict graph as the basis for deriving (or “learning”) new clauses. Extracting a resolution derivation from the conflict graph is theoretically straightforward, but resolution proofs can be extremely long. This paper reports on a tool that has verified proofs more than 1600 gigabytes long. Several other certificate formats have been proposed and studied, but the verifiers for these formats are beyond any hope of automated verification in their own rights. However, some of the alternative formats enjoy the advantages of being easy to produce proofs for, and reasonable in their space requirements. This paper reports progress on developing a practical system for formal verification of a more compact certificate format. Experimental comparisons are presented. A format called RUP (for Reverse Unit Propagation) is introduced and two implementations are evaluated. This method is an extension of conflict-clause proofs introduced by Goldberg and Novikov, and is compatible with conflict-clause minimization. Extracting a resolution derivation from other decidable theories is discussed briefly.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  1. Anderson, R., Bledsoe, W.W.: A linear format for resolution with merging and a new technique for establishing completeness. J. ACM 17(3), 525–534 (1970)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Audemard, G., Bordeaux, L., Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Saïs, L.: A generalized framework for conflict analysis. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2008, LNCS 4996. Springer (2008)

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

  4. Barrett, C., Dill, D., Levitt, J.: Validity checking for combinations of theories with equality. In: Formal Methods In Computer-Aided Design, LNCS, vol. 1166, pp. 187–201, Palo Alto, CA. Springer (1996)

  5. Barrett, C.W., Dill, D.L., Levitt, J.R.: A decision procedure for bit-vector arithmetic. In: 35th Design Automation Conference, San Francisco (1998)

  6. Barrett, C.W., Dill, D.L., Stump, A.: A framework for cooperating decision procedures. In: 17th International Conference on Computer-Aided Deduction (2000)

  7. Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 22, 319–351 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Biere, A.: Picosat essentials. JSAT, Boolean Modeling and Computation 4, 75–97 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonet, M.L., Buss, S.: An improved separation of regular resolution from pool resolution and clause learning. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2012, LNCS 7317, pp. 44–57, Trento, Italy. Springer (2012)

  10. Bryant, R.E., German, S., Velev, M.N.: Processor verification using efficient reductions of the logic of uninterpreted functions to propositional logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(1), 93–134 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Burris, S.: Logic for Mathematics and Computer Science. Prentice Hall (1998)

  12. Cook, S.A.: An observation on time-storage trade-off. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 9, 308–316 (1974)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Das, S., Dill, D.L.: Successive approximation of abstract transition relations. In: IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Boston (2001)

  14. de Moura, L., Ruess, H.: Lemmas on demand for satisfiability solvers. In: Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. Cincinnati, OH, pp. 244–251 (2002)

  15. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: a fast and robust sat-solver. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 142–149 (2002)

  16. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 886–891 (2003)

  17. Immerman, N.: Descriptive Complexity. Springer (1999)

  18. Kleine Büning, H., Lettmann, T.: Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms. Cambridge University Press (1999)

  19. Loveland, D.W.: Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP—a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 48, 506–521 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, D.W.S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: 39th Design Automation Conference (2001)

  22. Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1(2), 245–257 (1979)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Fast decision procedures based on congruence closure. J. ACM 27(2), 356–364 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Nieuwenhuis, R., A Oliveras, Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: from an abstract Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM 53, 937–977 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Ruess, H., Shankar, N.: Deconstructing shostak. In: IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Boston (2001)

  26. Shankar, N.: Trust and automation in verification tools. In: Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, Seoul (2008)

  27. Shostak, R.E.: Deciding combinations of theories. J. ACM 31(1), 1–12 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Sinz, C., Biere, A.: Extended resolution proofs for conjoining BDDs. In: 1st Intl. Computer Science Symp. in Russia (CSR 2006), LNCS 3967, St. Petersburg. Springer (2006). See also http://fmv.jku.at/tracecheck

  29. Sipser, M.: Introduction to the Theory of Computation. PWS (2007)

  30. Sörensson, N., Biere, A.: Minimizing learned clauses. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2009, LNCS 5584, pp. 237–243, Swansea, Wales. Springer (2009)

  31. Spence, I.: tts: a SAT-solver for small, difficult instances. JSAT, Boolean Modeling and Computation 4, 173–190 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Gelder, A.: Decision procedures should be able to produce (easily) checkable proofs. In: Workshop on Constraints in Formal Verification, Ithaca, NY (2002). In conjunction with CP02

  33. Van Gelder, A.: Extracting (easily) checkable proofs from a satisfiability solver that employs both preorder and postorder resolution. In: Seventh Int’l Symposium on AI and Mathematics (2002). Also at http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~avg/Papers/sat-pre-post.pdf

  34. Van Gelder, A.: Generalizations of watched literals for backtracking search. In: Seventh Int’l Symposium on AI and Mathematics, Ft. Lauderdale, FL (2002). Also at http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~avg/Papers/watched-lits.pdf

  35. Van Gelder, A.: Pool resolution and its relation to regular resolution and DPLL with clause learning. In: Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR), LNAI 3835, pp. 580–594, Montego Bay, Jamaica. Springer (2005)

  36. Van Gelder, A.: Toward leaner binary-clause reasoning in a satisfiability solver. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 43(1–4), 239–253 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Van Gelder, A.: Verifying propositional unsatisfiability: pitfalls to avoid. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2007, LNCS 4501, pp. 328–333, Lisbon. Springer (2007)

  38. Van Gelder, A.: Verifying RUP proofs of propositional unsatisfiability. In: Tenth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, Fort Lauderdale (2008). Also at http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~avg/Papers/proofs-isaim08.pdf

  39. Van Gelder, A.: Improved conflict-clause minimization leads to improved propositional proof traces. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2009, LNCS 5584, pp. 141–146, Swansea, Wales. Springer (2009)

  40. Velev, M.N., Bryant, R.E.: EVC: a validity checker for the logic of equality with uninterpreted functions and memories, exploiting positive equality and conservative transformations. In: Computer-Aided Verification (LNCS 2102), pp. 235–240. Springer (2001)

  41. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Extracting small unsatisfiable cores from unsatisfiable Boolean formula. In: Proc. Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pp. 239–249, Santa Margherita Ligure–Portofino (2003). Available from authors

  42. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating sat solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: practical implementations and other applications. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe (2003)

  43. Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD (2001)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Dept., SOE–3, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA

    Allen Van Gelder

Authors
  1. Allen Van Gelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allen Van Gelder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Gelder, A. Producing and verifying extremely large propositional refutations. Ann Math Artif Intell 65, 329–372 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-012-9322-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-012-9322-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Search

Navigation