Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computing with SAT Oracles: Past, Present and Future

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Sailing Routes in the World of Computation (CiE 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10936))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) epitomizes NP-completeness, and so what is arguably the best known class of intractable problems. NP-complete decision problems are pervasive in all areas of computing, with literally thousands of well-known examples. Nevertheless, SAT solvers routinely challenge the problem’s intractability by solving propositional formulas with millions of variables, many representing the translation from some other NP-complete or NP-hard problem. The practical effectiveness of SAT solvers has motivated their use as oracles for NP, enabling new algorithms that solve an ever-increasing range of hard computational problems. This paper provides a brief overview of this ongoing effort, summarizing some of the recent past and present main successes, and highlighting directions for future research.

This work was supported by FCT grant ABSOLV (028986/02/SAICT/2017), and LASIGE Research Unit, ref. UID/CEC/00408/2013.

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

Access this chapter

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 EPUB and 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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The paper aims to highlight the many uses of SAT oracles, and so the list of references does not aim to be exhaustive. Additional references can be found in the references cited.

References

  1. Abío, I., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E., Mayer-Eichberger, V.: A new look at BDDs for pseudo-boolean constraints. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 45, 443–480 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Achá, R.J.A., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: Practical algorithms for unsatisfiability proof and core generation in SAT solvers. AI Commun. 23(2–3), 145–157 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Angelino, E., Larus-Stone, N., Alabi, D., Seltzer, M., Rudin, C.: Learning certifiably optimal rule lists. In: KDD, pp. 35–44 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arif, M.F., Mencía, C., Marques-Silva, J.: Efficient MUS enumeration of horn formulae with applications to axiom pinpointing. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 324–342. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_24

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Asín, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E.: Cardinality networks: a theoretical and empirical study. Constraints 16(2), 195–221 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Bacchus, F., Davies, J., Tsimpoukelli, M., Katsirelos, G.: Relaxation search: a simple way of managing optional clauses. In: AAAI, pp. 835–841 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bacchus, F., Katsirelos, G.: Using minimal correction sets to more efficiently compute minimal unsatisfiable sets. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9207, pp. 70–86. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21668-3_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., Roussel, O.: New encodings of Pseudo-Boolean constraints into CNF. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 181–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_19

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Belov, A., Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Towards efficient MUS extraction. AI Commun. 25(2), 97–116 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Beyersdorff, O., Chew, L., Schmidt, R.A., Suda, M.: Lifting QBF resolution calculi to DQBF. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 490–499. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Beyersdorff, O., Pich, J.: Understanding Gentzen and Frege systems for QBF. In: LICS, pp. 146–155 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Buss, S., Bonet, M.L., Ignatiev, A., Marques-Silva, J., Morgado, A.: MaxSAT resolution with the dual rail encoding. In: AAAI, February 2018

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cadoli, M., Schaerf, A.: Compiling problem specifications into SAT. Artif. Intell. 162(1–2), 89–120 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Chakraborty, S., Meel, K.S., Vardi, M.Y.: Algorithmic improvements in approximate counting for probabilistic inference: from linear to logarithmic SAT calls. In: IJCAI, pp. 3569–3576 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cimatti, A., Griggio, A.: Software model checking via IC3. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 277–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: STOC, pp. 151–158 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cygan, M., Fomin, F.V., Kowalik, L., Lokshtanov, D., Marx, D., Pilipczuk, M., Pilipczuk, M., Saurabh, S.: Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Davies, J., Bacchus, F.: Solving MAXSAT by solving a sequence of simpler SAT instances. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, pp. 225–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23786-7_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. de Haan, R., Szeider, S.: The parameterized complexity of reasoning problems beyond NP. In: KR (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37. MiniSat 2.2. https://github.com/niklasso/minisat.git

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. JSAT 2(1–4), 1–26 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Fomin, F.V., Kaski, P.: Exact exponential algorithms. Commun. ACM 56(3), 80–88 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fu, Z., Malik, S.: On solving the partial MAX-SAT problem. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 252–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11814948_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Ganzinger, H., Korovin, K.: New directions in instantiation-based theorem proving. In: LICS, pp. 55–64 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York (1979)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Grégoire, É., Lagniez, J., Mazure, B.: An experimentally efficient method for (MSS, CoMSS) partitioning. In: AAAI, pp. 2666–2673 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Helmert, M.: The fast downward planning system. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 26, 191–246 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Heras, F., Morgado, A., Marques-Silva, J.: Core-guided binary search algorithms for maximum satisfiability. In: AAAI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Heras, F., Morgado, A., Planes, J., Silva, J.P.M.: Iterative SAT solving for minimum satisfiability. In: ICTAI, pp. 922–927 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O.: The science of brute force. Commun. ACM 60(8), 70–79 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O., Marek, V.W.: Solving very hard problems: cube-and-conquer, a hybrid SAT solving method. In: IJCAI, pp. 4864–4868 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ignatiev, A., Morgado, A., Marques-Silva, J.: Propositional abduction with implicit hitting sets. In: ECAI, pp. 1327–1335 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ignatiev, A., Morgado, A., Marques-Silva, J.: On tackling the limits of resolution in SAT solving. In: Gaspers, S., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10491, pp. 164–183. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66263-3_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Ignatiev, A., Pereira, F., Narodytska, N., Marques-Silva, J.: A SAT-based approach to learn explainable decision sets. In: IJCAR (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Ignatiev, A., Previti, A., Marques-Silva, J.: SAT-based formula simplification. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 287–298. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_21

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I.: Compact translations of non-disjunctive answer set programs to propositional clauses. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6565, pp. 111–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_8

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Janota, M., Klieber, W., Marques-Silva, J., Clarke, E.M.: Solving QBF with counterexample guided refinement. Artif. Intell. 234, 1–25 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Janota, M., Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Algorithms for computing backbones of propositional formulae. AI Commun. 28(2), 161–177 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: Abstraction-based algorithm for 2QBF. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 230–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: Expansion-based QBF solving versus Q-resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 577, 25–42 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: Solving QBF by clause selection. In: IJCAI, pp. 325–331 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: On the query complexity of selecting minimal sets for monotone predicates. Artif. Intell. 233, 73–83 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In: IJCAI, pp. 318–325 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Korovin, K.: Inst-Gen – a modular approach to instantiation-based automated reasoning. In: Voronkov, A., Weidenbach, C. (eds.) Programming Logics: Essays in Memory of Harald Ganzinger. LNCS, vol. 7797, pp. 239–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37651-1_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Decision Procedures - An Algorithmic Point of View, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-50497-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Kullmann, O., Marques-Silva, J.: Computing maximal autarkies with few and simple oracle queries. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 138–155. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Lagniez, J., Berre, D.L., de Lima, T., Montmirail, V.: A recursive shortcut for CEGAR: application to the modal logic K satisfiability problem. In: IJCAI, pp. 674–680 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lakkaraju, H., Bach, S.H., Leskovec, J.: Interpretable decision sets: a joint framework for description and prediction. In: KDD, pp. 1675–1684 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Li, O., Liu, H., Chen, C., Rudin, C.: Deep learning for case-based reasoning through prototypes: a neural network that explains its predictions. In: AAAI, February 2018

    Google Scholar 

  54. Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Poupart, P., Czarnecki, K.: Exponential recency weighted average branching heuristic for SAT solvers. In: AAAI, pp. 3434–3440 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Liffiton, M.H., Previti, A., Malik, A., Marques-Silva, J.: Fast, flexible MUS enumeration. Constraints 21(2), 223–250 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Luo, M., Li, C., Xiao, F., Manyà, F., Lü, Z.: An effective learnt clause minimization approach for CDCL SAT solvers. In: IJCAI, pp. 703–711 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Marques-Silva, J., Heras, F., Janota, M., Previti, A., Belov, A.: On computing minimal correction subsets. In: IJCAI, pp. 615–622 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., Belov, A.: Minimal sets over monotone predicates in Boolean formulae. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 592–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., Ignatiev, A., Morgado, A.: Efficient model based diagnosis with maximum satisfiability. In: IJCAI, pp. 1966–1972 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., Mencía, C.: Minimal sets on propositional formulae. problems and reductions. Artif. Intell. 252, 22–50 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  61. Marques-Silva, J., Planes, J.: On using unsatisfiability for solving maximum satisfiability. CoRR, abs/0712.1097 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(5), 506–521 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  63. Martins, R., Joshi, S., Manquinho, V., Lynce, I.: Incremental cardinality constraints for MaxSAT. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8656, pp. 531–548. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10428-7_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt, W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Mencía, C., Ignatiev, A., Previti, A., Marques-Silva, J.: MCS extraction with sublinear oracle queries. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 342–360. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  66. Mencía, C., Previti, A., Marques-Silva, J.: Literal-based MCS extraction. In: IJCAI, pp. 1973–1979 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Morgado, A., Dodaro, C., Marques-Silva, J.: Core-guided MaxSAT with soft cardinality constraints. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8656, pp. 564–573. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10428-7_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: DAC, pp. 530–535 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Nadel, A., Ryvchin, V., Strichman, O.: Efficient MUS extraction with resolution. In: FMCAD, pp. 197–200 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Narodytska, N., Bacchus, F.: Maximum satisfiability using core-guided MaxSAT resolution. In: AAAI, pp. 2717–2723 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Narodytska, N., Ignatiev, A., Pereira, F., Marques-Silva, J.: Learning optimal decision trees with SAT. In: IJCAI (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Niemetz, A., Preiner, M., Biere, A.: Propagation based local search for bit-precise reasoning. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 51(3), 608–636 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nöhrer, A., Biere, A., Egyed, A.: Managing SAT inconsistencies with HUMUS. In: VaMoS, pp. 83–91 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ohrimenko, O., Stuckey, P.J., Codish, M.: Propagation via lazy clause generation. Constraints 14(3), 357–391 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  75. Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Piskac, R., de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Deciding effectively propositional logic using DPLL and substitution sets. J. Autom. Reason. 44(4), 401–424 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  77. Previti, A., Ignatiev, A., Morgado, A., Marques-Silva, J.: Prime compilation of non-clausal formulae. In: IJCAI, pp. 1980–1988 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pudlák, P.: Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations. J. Symb. Log. 62(3), 981–998 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  79. Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–95 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  80. Sebastiani, R.: Lazy satisfiability modulo theories. JSAT 3(3–4), 141–224 (2007)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  81. Sinz, C.: Towards an optimal CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 827–831. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11564751_73

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  82. Suda, M.: Property directed reachability for automated planning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 50, 265–319 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  83. Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: TACAS, pp. 632–647 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Voronkov, A.: AVATAR: the architecture for first-order theorem provers. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 696–710. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Walsh, T.: SAT v CSP. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45349-0_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  86. Warners, J.P.: A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into conjunctive normal form. Inf. Process. Lett. 68(2), 63–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  87. Woeginger, G.J.: Exact algorithms for NP-hard problems: a survey. In: Jünger, M., Reinelt, G., Rinaldi, G. (eds.) Combinatorial Optimization — Eureka, You Shrink!. LNCS, vol. 2570, pp. 185–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36478-1_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LASIGE, Faculty of Science, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Joao Marques-Silva

Authors
  1. Joao Marques-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joao Marques-Silva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Florin Manea

  2. Queens College, CUNY, Queens, New York, USA

    Russell G. Miller

  3. Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Dirk Nowotka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Marques-Silva, J. (2018). Computing with SAT Oracles: Past, Present and Future. In: Manea, F., Miller, R., Nowotka, D. (eds) Sailing Routes in the World of Computation. CiE 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10936. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94418-0_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94418-0_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94417-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94418-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation