A branch and bound algorithm for extracting smallest minimal unsatisfiable subformulas
 Mark Liffiton,
 Maher Mneimneh,
 Inês Lynce,
 Zaher Andraus,
 João MarquesSilva,
 Karem Sakallah
 … show all 6 hide
Rent the article at a discount
Rent now* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Get AccessAbstract
Explaining the causes of infeasibility of Boolean formulas has practical applications in numerous fields, such as artificial intelligence (repairing inconsistent knowledge bases), formal verification (abstraction refinement and unbounded model checking), and electronic design (diagnosing and correcting infeasibility). Minimal unsatisfiable subformulas (MUSes) provide useful insights into the causes of infeasibility. An unsatisfiable formula often has many MUSes. Based on the application domain, however, MUSes with specific properties might be of interest. In this paper, we tackle the problem of finding a smallestcardinality MUS (SMUS) of a given formula. An SMUS provides a succinct explanation of infeasibility and is valuable for applications that are heavily affected by the size of the explanation. We present (1) a baseline algorithm for finding an SMUS, founded on earlier work for finding all MUSes, and (2) a new branchandbound algorithm called Digger that computes a strong lower bound on the size of an SMUS and splits the problem into more tractable subformulas in a recursive search tree. Using two benchmark suites, we experimentally compare Digger to the baseline algorithm and to an existing incomplete genetic algorithm approach. Digger is shown to be faster in nearly all cases. It is also able to solve far more instances within a given runtime limit than either of the other approaches.
 Aharoni, R., & Linial, N. (1986). Minimal nontwocolorable hypergraphs and minimal unsatisfiable formulas. Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, 43(2), 196–204. CrossRef
 Andraus, Z. S., Liffiton, M. H., & Sakallah, K. A. (2006). Refinement strategies for verification methods based on datapath abstraction. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Asia South Pacific design automation (ASPDAC’06) (pp. 19–24).
 Andraus, Z. S., Liffiton, M. H., & Sakallah, K. A. (2007). CEGARbased formal hardware verification: A case study. Technical Report CSETR53107, University of Michigan.
 Bailey, J., & Stuckey, P. J. (2005). Discovery of minimal unsatisfiable subsets of constraints using hitting set dualization. In Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on practical aspects of declarative languages (PADL’05), LNCS (Vol. 3350, pp. 174–186).
 Birnbaum, E., & Lozinskii, E. L. (2003). Consistent subsets of inconsistent systems: Structure and behaviour. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 15, 25–46. CrossRef
 Bruni, R., & Sassano, A. (2001). Restoring satisfiability or maintaining unsatisfiability by finding small unsatisfiable subformulae. In LICS 2001 workshop on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT2001), Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics (Vol. 9, pp. 162–173).
 Büning, H. K. (2000). On subclasses of minimal unsatisfiable formulas. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 107(1–3), 83–98. CrossRef
 Büning, H. K., & Zhao, X. (2001). Minimal falsity for QBF with deficiency one. Workshop on Theory and Applications of Quantified Boolean Formulas.
 Dasgupta, S., & Chandru, V. (2004). Minimal unsatisfiable sets: Classification and bounds. In M. J. Maher (Ed.), Advances in computer science—ASIAN 2004, LNCS (Vol. 3321, pp. 330–342). Springer.
 Davydov, G., Davydova, I., & Büning, H. K. (1998). An efficient algorithm for the minimal unsatisfiability problem for a subclass of CNF. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 23(3–4), 229–245. CrossRef
 Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2003). An extensible SATsolver. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT2003), LNCS (Vol. 2919, pp. 502–518).
 Fleischner, H., Kullmann, O., & Szeider, S. (2002). Polynomialtime recognition of minimal unsatisfiable formulas with fixed clausevariable difference. Theoretical Computer Science, 289(1), 503–516. CrossRef
 Gershman, R., Koifman, M., & Strichman, O. (2006). Deriving small unsatisfiable cores with dominators. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV’06) (pp. 109–122).
 Goldberg, E., & Novikov, Y. (2003). Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In Proceedings of the conference on design, automation, and test in Europe (DATE’03) (pp. 10886–10891).
 Grégoire, É., Mazure, B., & Piette, C. (2007). Localsearch extraction of MUSes. Constraints, 12(3), 325–344. CrossRef
 Hachtel, G. D., & Somenzi, F. (1996). Logic synthesis and verification algorithms. Kluwer Academic.
 Han, B., & Lee, S.J. (1999). Deriving minimal conflict sets by CStrees with mark set in diagnosis from first principles. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 29(2), 281–286, April.
 Huang, J. (2005). MUP: A minimal unsatisfiability prover. In Proceedings of the 10th Asia and South Pacific design automation conference (ASPDAC’05) (pp. 432–437).
 Jain, H., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., & Clarke, E. (2005). Word level predicate abstraction and refinement for verifying RTL verilog. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference on design automation (DAC’05) (pp. 445–450).
 Kullmann, O. (2000). An application of matroid theory to the SAT problem. In 15th annual IEEE conference on computational complexity (pp. 116–124), July.
 Kurshan, R. P. (1994). Computer aided verification of coordinating processes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
 Liffiton, M. H., & Sakallah, K. A. (2005). On finding all minimally unsatisfiable subformulas. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT2005), LNCS (Vol. 3569, pp. 173–186).
 Liffiton, M. H., & Sakallah, K. A. (2008). Algorithms for computing minimal unsatisfiable subsets of constraints. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 40(1), 1–33, January. CrossRef
 Lynce, I., & MarquesSilva, J. (2004). On computing minimum unsatisfiable cores. In The 7th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT2004).
 Mneimneh, M. N., Lynce, I., Andraus, Z. S., Silva, J. P. M., & Sakallah, K. A. (2005). A branchandbound algorithm for extracting smallest minimal unsatisfiable formulas. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT2005), LNCS (Vol. 3569, pp. 467–474).
 Nam, G.J., Aloul, F. A., Sakallah, K. A., & Rutenbar, R. A. (2004). A comparative study of two Boolean formulations of FPGA detailed routing constraints. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 53(6), 688–696. CrossRef
 Oh, Y., Mneimneh, M. N., Andraus, Z. S., Sakallah, K. A., & Markov, I. L. (2004). AMUSE: A minimallyunsatisfiable subformula extractor. In Proceedings of the 41st annual conference on design automation (DAC’04) (pp. 518–523).
 Papadimitriou, C. H., & Wolfe, D. (1988). The complexity of facets resolved. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 37(1), 2–13. CrossRef
 Sinz, C. (2003). SAT benchmarks from automotive product configuration. Website. http://wwwsr.informatik.unituebingen.de/∼sinz/DC/.
 Sinz, C., Kaiser, A., & Küchlin, W. (2003). Formal methods for the validation of automotive product configuration data. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 17(1), 75–97. CrossRef
 Szeider, S. (2004). Minimal unsatisfiable formulas with bounded clausevariable difference are fixedparameter tractable. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 69(4), 656–674, December. CrossRef
 Zhang, J., Li, S., & Shen, S. (2006). Extracting minimum unsatisfiable cores with a greedy genetic algorithm. In AI 2006: Advances in artificial intelligence, LNCS (Vol. 4304, pp. 847–856).
 Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2003). Extracting small unsatisfiable cores from unsatisfiable Boolean formula. In The 6th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT2003).
 Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2003). Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolutionbased checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In Proceedings of the conference on design, automation, and test in Europe (DATE’03) (pp. 10880–10885).
 Title
 A branch and bound algorithm for extracting smallest minimal unsatisfiable subformulas
 Journal

Constraints
Volume 14, Issue 4 , pp 415442
 Cover Date
 20091201
 DOI
 10.1007/s1060100890588
 Print ISSN
 13837133
 Online ISSN
 15729354
 Publisher
 Springer US
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Keywords

 Boolean satisfiability
 SAT
 Infeasibility
 Minimal unsatisfiable subformula
 MUS
 Smallest minimal unsatisfiable subformula
 SMUS
 Authors

 Mark Liffiton ^{(1)}
 Maher Mneimneh ^{(1)}
 Inês Lynce ^{(2)}
 Zaher Andraus ^{(1)}
 João MarquesSilva ^{(3)}
 Karem Sakallah ^{(1)}
 Author Affiliations

 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
 2. Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
 3. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK