[1]

P.A. Abdulla, P. Bjesse and N. Eén, Symbolic reachability analysis based on SAT-solvers, in: *Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’2000)* (2000).

[2]

F. Bacchus, Enhancing Davis Putnam with extended binary clause reasoning, in: *Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2002)* (2002).

[3]

F. Bacchus, Exploring the computational tradeoff of more reasoning and less searching, in: [49, pp. 7–16] (2002).

[4]

L. Baptista and J.P. Marques-Silva, Using randomization and learning to solve hard real-world instances of satisfiability, in: *Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP)* (2000).

[5]

R.J.J. Bayardo and R.C. Schrag, Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in: *Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’97)* (AMS, Providence, RI, 1997) pp. 203–208.

[6]

A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E.M. Clarke, M. Fujita and Y. Zhu, Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs, in: *Proceedings of Design Automation Conference (DAC’99)* (1999).

[7]

M. Buro and H.K. Büning, Report on a SAT competition, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 49 (1993) 143–151.

MATHGoogle Scholar[8]

C.-M. Li, B. Jurkowiak and P.W. Purdom Jr, Integrating symmetry breaking into a DLL procedure, in: [49, pp. 149–155] (2002).

[9]

A.E. Caldwell, A.B. Kahng and I.L. Markov, Toward CAD-IP reuse: The MARCO GSRC bookshelf of fundamental CAD algorithms, IEEE Design and Test (May 2002) 72-81.

[10]

P. Chatalic and L. Simon, Multi-resolution on compressed sets of clauses, in: *Twelth International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI’00)* (2000) pp. 2–10.

[11]

S.A. Cook, The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, in: *Proceedings of the Third IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science* (1971) pp. 151–158.

[12]

F. Copty, L. Fix, E. Giunchiglia, G. Kamhi, A. Tacchella and M. Vardi, Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting, in: *Proc. of CAV* (2001).

[13]

E. Dantsin, A. Goerdt, E.A. Hirsch, R. Kannan, J. Kleinberg, C. Papadimitriou, P. Raghavan and U. Schöning, Deterministic (2 − 2 (

*k* + 1 )

^{n} algorithm for

*k*-SAT based on local search, Theoretical Computer Science 189(1) (2002) 69–83.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar[14]

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

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[15]

M. Davis and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory, Journal of the ACM 7(3) (1960) 201–215.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[16]

O. Dubois, P. André, Y. Boufkhad and J. Carlier, SAT versus UNSAT, in: [29, pp. 415–436] (1996).

[17]

O. Dubois and G. Dequen, A backbone-search heuristic for efficient solving of hard 3-SAT formulae, in: *Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’01),* Seattle, WA (2001).

[18]

M.D. Ernst, T.D. Millstein and D.S. Weld, Automatic SAT-compilation of planning problems, in: [28, pp. 1169–1176] (1997).

[19]

F. Aloul, A. Ramani, I. Markov and K. Sakallah, Solving difficult SAT instances in the presence of symmetry, in: *Design Automation Conference (DAC)*, New Orleans, LO (2002) pp. 731–736.

[20]

J.W. Freeman, Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms, Ph.D. thesis, Departement of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (1995).

[21]

E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov, BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver, in: *Design, Automation, and Test in Europe (DATE ‘02)* (2002) pp. 142–149.

[22]

C.P. Gomes, B. Selman and H. Kautz, Boosting combinatorial search through randomization, in: *Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’98)*, Madison, WI (1998) pp. 431–437.

[23]

E.A. Hirsch, SAT local search algorithms: Worst-case study, Journal of Automated Reasoning 24(1/2) (2000) 127–143. Also reprinted in

*Highlights of Satisfiability Research in the Year 2000*, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 63 (IOS Press, 2000).

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[24]

E.A. Hirsch, New worst-case upper bounds for SAT, Journal of Automated Reasoning 24(4) (2000) 397–420. Also reprinted in

*Highlights of Satisfiability Research in the Year 2000*, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 63 (IOS Press, 2000).

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[25]

E.A. Hirsch and A. Kojevnikov, UnitWalk: A new SAT solver that uses local search guided by unit clause elimination, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 43 (2005) 91–111.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[26]

J.N. Hooker, Needed: An empirical science of algorithms, Operations Research 42(2) (1994) 201–212.

CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar[27]

J.N. Hooker, Testing heuristics: We have it all wrong, Journal of Heuristics (1996) 32–42.

[28]

IJCAI97, *Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’97)*, Nagoya, Japan (1997).

[29]

D. Johnson and M. Trick (eds.), *Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge: Cliques, Coloring and Satisfiability*, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 26 (American Mathematical Society, 1996).

[30]

H. Kautz and B. Selman (eds.), *Proceedings of the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT2001), LICS 2001 Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2001)* (Elsevier Science, 2001).

[31]

H.A. Kautz and B. Selman, Planning as satisfiability, in: *Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence* (ECAI’92) (1992) pp. 359–363.

[32]

H.A. Kautz and B. Selman, Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search, in: *Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’96)* (1996) pp. 1194–1201.

[33]

E. Koutsoupias and C.H. Papadimitriou, On the greedy algorithm for satisfiability, Information Processing Letters 43(1) (1992) 53–55.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[34]

O. Kullmann, First report on an adaptive density based branching rule for DLL-like SAT solvers, using a database for mixed random conjunctive normal forms created using the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), Technical Report CSR 19-2002, University of Wales Swansea, Computer Science Report Series (2002). (Extended version of [36].)

[35]

O. Kullmann, Investigating the behaviour of a SAT solver on random formulas, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2002).

[36]

O. Kullmann, Towards an adaptive density based branching rule for SAT solvers, using a database for mixed random conjunctive normal forms built upon the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), in: [49] (2002).

[37]

C.-M. Li, A constrained based approach to narrow search trees for satisfiability, Information Processing Letters 71 (1999) 75–80.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[38]

C.-M. Li, Integrating equivalency reasoning into Davis-Putnam procedure, in: *Proceedings of the 17th National Conference in Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’00)*, Austin, TX (2000) pp. 291–296.

[39]

C.-M. Li and Anbulagan, Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems, in: [28, pp. 366–371] (1997).

[40]

I. Lynce and J.P. Marques Silva, Efficient data structures for backtrack search SAT solvers, in: [49] (2002).

[41]

I. Lynce, L. Baptista and J.P. Marques Silva, Stochastic systematic search algorithms for satisfiability, in: [30] (2001).

[42]

J.P. Marques-Silva and K.A. Sakallah, GRASP — A new search algorithm for satisfiability, in: *Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design* (1996) pp. 220–227.

[43]

M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: *Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC’01)* (2001) pp. 530–535.

[44]

F. Okushi and A. Van Gelder, Persistent and quasi-persistent lemmas in propositional model elimination, in:

*(Electronic) Proc. 6th Int’l Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics* (2000).; Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 40(3–4) (2004) 373–402.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[45]

R. Ostrowski, E. Grégoire, B. Mazure and L. Sais, Recovering and exploiting structural knowledge from CNF formulas, in: *Proc. of the Eighth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’2002)*, Ithaca, NY (2002).

[46]

R. Paturi, P. Pudlàk and F. Zane, Satisfiability coding lemma, in: *Proceedings of the 38th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS’97* (1997) pp. 566–574.

[47]

S. Prestwich, A SAT approach to query optimization in mediator systems, in: [49, pp. 252-259] (2002).

[48]

S.D. Prestwich, Randomised backtracking for linear pseudo-Boolean constraint problems, in: *Proceedings of Fourth International Workshop on Integration of AI and OR techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimisation Problems* (2002).

[49]

SAT2002, *Fifth International Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing*, Cincinnati, OH (2002).

[50]

R. Schuler, U. Schöning, O. Watanabe and T. Hofmeister, A probabilistic 3-SAT algorithm further improved, in: *Proceedings of 19th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 2002* (2002).

[51]

B. Selman, H.A. Kautz and B. Cohen, Noise strategies for improving local search, in: *Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’94)*, Seattle (1994) pp. 337–343.

[52]

B. Selman, H. Levesque and D. Mitchell, A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems, in: *Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’92)* (1992) pp. 440–446.

[53]

Y. Shang and B.W. Wah, A discrete Lagrangian-based global-search method for solving satisfiability problems, Journal of Global Optimization 12(1) (1998) 61–99.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[54]

L. Simon and P. Chatalic, SATEx: a Web-based framework for SAT experimentation, in: [30] (2001); http://www.lri.fr/~simon/satex.

[55]

G. Sutcliff and C. Suttner, Evaluating general purpose automated theorem proving systems, Artificial Intelligence 131 (2001) 39–54.

CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[56]

G.S. Tseitin, On the complexity of derivation in the propositional calculus, in:

*Structures in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II*, ed. A.O. Slisenko (Consultants Bureau, New York, 1970) 115–125. Translated from Russian.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar[57]

A. Urquhart, Hard examples for resolution, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 34(1) (1987) 209–219.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[58]

A. Van Gelder, Autarky pruning in propositional model elimination reduces failure redundancy, Journal of Automated Reasoning 23(2) (1999) 137–193.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[59]

A. Van Gelder, Extracting (easily) checkable proofs from a satisfiability solver that employs both pre-order and postorder resolution, in: *Seventh Int’l Symposium on AI and Mathematics*, Fort Lauderdale, FL (2002).

[60]

A. Van Gelder, Generalizations of watched literals for backtracking search, in: *Seventh Int’l Symposium on AI and Mathematics*, Fort Lauderdale, FL (2002).

[61]

A. Van Gelder and F. Okushi, Lemma and Cut strategies for propositional model elimination, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 26(1–4) (1999) 113–132.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[62]

A. Van Gelder and Y.K. Tsuji, Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing, in: [29, pp. 559–586] (1996).

[63]

M. Velev and R. Bryant, Effective use of Boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and VLIW microprocessors, in: *Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC ‘01)* (2001) pp. 226–231.

[64]

J. Warners and H. van Maaren, Solving satisfiability problems using elliptic approximations: Effective branching rules, Discrete Applied Mathematics 107 (2000) 241–259.

CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar[65]

H. Zhang, SATO: An efficient propositional prover, in: *Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE’97)*, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1249 (1997) pp. 272-275.

[66]

H. Zhang and M.E. Stickel, An efficient algorithm for unit propagation, in: *Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (AI-MATH’96)*, Fort Lauderdale, FL (1996).

[67]

L. Zhang, C.F. Madigan, M.W. Moskewicz and S. Malik, Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver, in: *International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD’01)* (2001) pp. 279–285.

[68]

L. Zheng and P.J. Stuckey, Improving SAT using 2SAT, in: *Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC2002)*, ed. M.J. Oudshoorn, Melbourne, Australia (2002).