Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Propositional SAT Solving

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Model Checking

Abstract

The Boolean Satisfiability Problem (SAT) is well known in computational complexity, representing the first decision problem to be proved NP-complete. SAT is also often the subject of work in proof complexity. Besides its theoretical interest, SAT finds a wide range of practical applications. Moreover, SAT solvers have been the subject of remarkable efficiency improvements since the mid-1990s, motivating their widespread use in many practical applications including Bounded and Unbounded Model Checking. The success of SAT solvers has also motivated the development of algorithms for natural extensions of SAT, including Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF), Pseudo-Boolean constraints (PB), Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) and Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) which also see application in the model-checking context. This chapter first covers the organization of modern conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) SAT solvers, which are used in the vast majority of practical applications of SAT. It then reviews the techniques shown to be effective in modern SAT solvers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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)

    Article  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. Ansótegui, C., Bonet, M.L., Levy, J.: SAT-based MaxSAT algorithms. Artif. Intell. 196, 77–105 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Audemard, G., Katsirelos, G., Simon, L.: A restriction of extended resolution for clause learning SAT solvers. In: Fox, M., Poole, D. (eds.) AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 15–20. AAAI Press, Palo Alto (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Experimenting with small changes in conflict-driven clause learning algorithms. In: Stuckey, P.J. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP). LNCS, vol. 5202, pp. 630–634. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 399–404. IJCAI/AAAI Press, Melbourne/Palo Alto (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., Roussel, O.: New encodings of pseudo-boolean constraints into CNF. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 181–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Baker, A.B.: The hazards of fancy backtracking. In: Hayes-Roth, B., Korf, R.E. (eds.) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 288–293. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Palo Alto/Cambridge (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bakker, R.R., Dikker, F., Tempelman, F., Wognum, P.M.: Diagnosing and solving over-determined constraint satisfaction problems. In: Bajcsy, R. (ed.) Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 276–281. Morgan Kaufmann, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baptista, L., Marques-Silva, J.: Using randomization and learning to solve hard real-world instances of satisfiability. In: Dechter [30], pp. 489–494

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Barrett, C.W., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S.A., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability modulo theories. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 825–885. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Batcher, K.E.: Sorting networks and their applications. In: AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference. AFIPS Conference Proceedings, vol. 32, pp. 307–314. Thomson Book Co., Washington D.C. (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bayardo, R.J. Jr., Schrag, R.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: Kuipers, B., Webber, B.L. (eds.) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 203–208. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Palo Alto/Cambridge (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Belov, A., Chen, H., Mishchenko, A., Marques-Silva, J.: Core minimization in SAT-based abstraction. In: Macii, E. (ed.) Design, Automation & Test in Europe (DATE), pp. 1411–1416. EDA Consortium/ACM, San Jose/New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Ben-Eliyahu, R., Dechter, R.: On computing minimal models. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 18(1), 3–27 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Ben-Eliyahu-Zohary, R., Palopoli, L.: Reasoning with minimal models: efficient algorithms and applications. Artif. Intell. 96(2), 421–449 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Biere, A.: PicoSAT essentials. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. 4(2–4), 75–97 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, R. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D.A. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI). LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z.: Property-directed incremental invariant generation. Form. Asp. Comput. 20(4–5), 379–405 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Brafman, R.I.: A simplifier for propositional formulas with many binary clauses. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Part B, Cybern. 34(1), 52–59 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. Trans. Comput. 35(8), 677–691 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Büning, H.K., Bubeck, U.: Theory of quantified boolean formulas. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 735–760. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Büning, H.K., Kullmann, O.: Minimal unsatisfiability and autarkies. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 339–401. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chinneck, J.W., Dravnieks, E.W.: Locating minimal infeasible constraint sets in linear programs. INFORMS J. Comput. 3(2), 157–168 (1991)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Coelho, H., Studer, R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the ECAI 2010—19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal, August 16–20, 2010. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Harrison, M.A., Banerji, R.B., Ullman, J.D. (eds.) Annual Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 151–158. ACM, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Crawford, J.M., Auton, L.D.: Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems. In: Fikes, R., Lehnert, W.G. (eds.) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 21–27. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Palo Alto/Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.W.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Dechter, R. (ed.): Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming—CP 2000, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, Singapore, September 18–21, 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Dershowitz, N., Hanna, Z., Nadel, A.: A scalable algorithm for minimal unsatisfiable core extraction. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 36–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dubois, O., André, P., Boufkhad, Y., Carlier, J.: SAT versus UNSAT. In: Johnson, D.S., Trick, M. (eds.) Cliques, Coloring and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 26, pp. 415–436. AMS, Providence (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating pseudo-boolean constraints into SAT. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. 2(1–4), 1–26 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Freeman, J.W.: Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Frisch, A.M., Peugniez, T.J.: Solving non-boolean satisfiability problems with stochastic local search. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 282–290. Morgan Kaufmann, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fujiwara, H., Shimono, T.: On the acceleration of test generation algorithms. Trans. Comput. 32(12), 1137–1144 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Giunchiglia, E., Marin, P., Narizzano, M.: Reasoning with quantified boolean formulas. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 761–780. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Goldberg, E.I., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: a fast and robust Sat-solver. In: Design, Automation & Test in Europe (DATE), pp. 142–149. IEEE, Piscataway (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Kautz, H.A.: Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In: Mostow, J., Rich, C. (eds.) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 431–437. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Palo Alto/Cambridge (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Grégoire, É., Mazure, B., Piette, C.: On approaches to explaining infeasibility of sets of boolean clauses. In: Intl. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), vol. 1, pp. 74–83. IEEE, Piscataway (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Guo, L., Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Sais, L.: Diversification and intensification in parallel SAT solving. In: Cohen, D. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP). LNCS, vol. 6308, pp. 252–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Sais, L.: ManySAT: a parallel SAT solver. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. 6(4), 245–262 (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Hamadi, Y., Wintersteiger, C.M.: Seven challenges in parallel SAT solving. AI Mag. 34(2), 99–106 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., Sais, L., Boussemart, F.: Extracting MUCs from constraint networks. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 113–117. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Heras, F., Larrosa, J., Oliveras, A.: MiniMaxSAT: an efficient weighted Max-SAT solver. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 31, 1–32 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Huang, J.: The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 2318–2323 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Huang, J.: Extended clause learning. Artif. Intell. 174(15), 1277–1284 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Jackson, D., Vaziri, M.: Finding bugs with a constraint solver. In: Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 14–25. ACM, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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—Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6565, pp. 111–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Janota, M., Klieber, W., Marques-Silva, J., Clarke, E.M.: Solving QBF with counterexample guided refinement. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Järvisalo, M., Biere, A., Heule, M.: Simulating circuit-level simplifications on CNF. J. Autom. Reason. 49(4), 583–619 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Järvisalo, M., Heule, M., Biere, A.: Inprocessing rules. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) Intl. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR). LNCS, vol. 7364, pp. 355–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Jin, H., Han, H., Somenzi, F.: Efficient conflict analysis for finding all satisfying assignments of a boolean circuit. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 287–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Junker, U.: QuickXplain: preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: McGuinness, D.L., Ferguson, G. (eds.) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 167–172. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Palo Alto/Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 359–363. Wiley, New York (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kleine-Büning, H., Letterman, T.: Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Decision Procedures: An Algorithmic Point of View. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Kullmann, O. (ed.): Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2009, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, SAT 2009, Swansea, UK, June 30–July 3, 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Laitinen, T., Junttila, T.A., Niemelä, I.: Extending clause learning DPLL with parity reasoning. In: Coelho et al. [61], pp. 21–26

    Google Scholar 

  66. Li, C.M., Manyà, F.: MaxSAT, hard and soft constraints. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 613–631. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Liffiton, M.H., Sakallah, K.A.: Algorithms for computing minimal unsatisfiable subsets of constraints. J. Autom. Reason. 40(1), 1–33 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Lynce, I., Baptista, L., Marques-Silva, J.: Towards provably complete stochastic search algorithms for satisfiability. In: Brazdil, P., Jorge, A. (eds.) Portuguese Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA). LNCS, vol. 2258, pp. 363–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Probing-based preprocessing techniques for propositional satisfiability. In: Intl. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 105–110. IEEE, Piscataway (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Efficient data structures for backtrack search SAT solvers. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 43(1), 137–152 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  71. Manquinho, V.M., Marques-Silva, J.: Satisfiability-based algorithms for boolean optimization. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 40(3–4), 353–372 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Marques-Silva, J.: Search algorithms for satisfiability problems in combinational switching circuits. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Marques-Silva, J.: The impact of branching heuristics in propositional satisfiability algorithms. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds.) Portuguese Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA). LNCS, vol. 1695, pp. 62–74. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Marques-Silva, J.: Algebraic simplification techniques for propositional satisfiability. In: Dechter [107], pp. 537–542

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  75. Marques-Silva, J., Heras, F., Janota, M., Previti, A., Belov, A.: On computing minimal correction subsets. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 615–622. IJCAI/AAAI, Melbourne/Palo Alto (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., Belov, A.: Minimal sets over monotone predicates in boolean formulae. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 592–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  77. Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., Lynce, I.: On computing backbones of propositional theories. In: Coelho et al. [54], pp. 15–20

    Google Scholar 

  78. Marques-Silva, J., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 131–153. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A.: Dynamic search-space pruning techniques in path sensitization. In: Lorenzetti, M.J. (ed.) Design Automation Conf. (DAC), pp. 705–711. ACM, New York (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  80. Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP—a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Rutenbar, R.A., Otten, R.H.J.M. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), pp. 220–227. IEEE/ACM, Piscataway/New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  82. Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.): Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2007, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, May 28–31, 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  83. McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt, W.A. Jr., Somenzi, F. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Morgado, A., Heras, F., Liffiton, M.H., Planes, J., Marques-Silva, J.: Iterative and core-guided MaxSAT solving: a survey and assessment. Constraints 18(4), 478–534 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  86. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Design Automation Conf. (DAC), pp. 530–535. ACM, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  87. Nam, G.J., Sakallah, K.A., Rutenbar, R.A.: Satisfiability-based detailed FPGA routing. In: Intl. Conf. on VLSI Design, pp. 574–577. IEEE, Piscataway (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: from an abstract Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure to DPLL(\(T\)). J. ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  89. Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: A lightweight component caching scheme for satisfiability solvers. In: Marques-Silva and Sakallah [33], pp. 294–299

    Google Scholar 

  90. Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 2(3), 293–304 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  91. Prestwich, S.D.: Variable dependency in local search: prevention is better than cure. In: Marques-Silva and Sakallah [32], pp. 107–120

    Google Scholar 

  92. Prestwich, S.D.: CNF encodings. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 75–97. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ravi, K., Somenzi, F.: Minimal assignments for bounded model checking. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  94. Robinson, J.A.: A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM 12(1), 23–41 (1965)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  95. Roussel, O., Manquinho, V.M.: Pseudo-boolean and cardinality constraints. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 695–733. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Sellmann, M.: Learning back-clauses in SAT. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 498–499. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  97. Schulz, M.H., Trischler, E., Sarfert, T.M.: SOCRATES: a highly efficient automatic test pattern generation system. Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 7(1), 126–137 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Selman, B., Kautz, H., Cohen, B.: Local search strategies for satisfiability testing. In: Johnson, D.S., Trick, M. (eds.) Cliques, Coloring and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 26, pp. 521–532. AMS, Providence (1996)

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  99. Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: Hunt, W.A. Jr., Johnson, S.D. (eds.) Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD). LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  100. Sheeran, M., Stålmarck, G.: A tutorial on Stålmarck’s proof procedure for propositional logic. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 16(1), 23–58 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Shlyakhter, I., Seater, R., Jackson, D., Sridharan, M., Taghdiri, M.: Debugging overconstrained declarative models using unsatisfiable cores. In: Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 94–105. IEEE, Piscataway (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  102. Sinz, C.: Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP). LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 827–831. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  103. Sinz, C., Iser, M.: Problem-sensitive restart heuristics for the DPLL procedure. In: Kullmann [98], pp. 356–362

    Google Scholar 

  104. de Siqueira, J.L.N., Puget, J.F.: Explanation-based generalisation of failures. In: Kodratoff, Y. (ed.) European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 339–344. Pitman, London (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  105. Sörensson, N., Biere, A.: Minimizing learned clauses. In: Kullmann [25], pp. 237–243

    Google Scholar 

  106. Stallman, R.M., Sussman, G.J.: Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artif. Intell. 9(2), 135–196 (1977)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  107. Stephan, P.R., Brayton, R.K., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L.: Combinational test generation using satisfiability. Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 15(9), 1167–1176 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Stuckey, P.J.: There are no CNF problems. In: Järvisalo, M., Gelder, A.V. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT). LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 19–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Tarjan, R.E.: Finding dominators in directed graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 3(1), 62–89 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  110. Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Silenko, A.O. (ed.) Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, pp. 115–125. Springer, Heidelberg (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  111. Urquhart, A.: The complexity of propositional proofs. Bull. Symb. Log. 1(4), 425–467 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  112. Van Gelder, A., Tsuji, Y.K.: Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing. Tech. rep., University of California at Santa Cruz (1995)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  114. Wieringa, S.: Understanding, improving and parallelizing MUS finding using model rotation. In: Milano, M. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP). LNCS, vol. 7514, pp. 672–687. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  115. Wolfram, D.A.: Forward checking and intelligent backtracking. Inf. Process. Lett. 32(2), 85–87 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  116. Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: SATzilla: Portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 32, 565–606 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  117. Zabih, R., McAllester, D.A.: A rearrangement search strategy for determining propositional satisfiability. In: Shrobe, H.E., Mitchell, T.M., Smith, R.G. (eds.) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 155–160. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Palo Alto/Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  118. Zhang, H.: SATO: an efficient propositional prover. In: McCune, W. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE). LNCS, vol. 1249, pp. 272–275. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  119. Zhang, H., Stickel, M.E.: Implementing the Davis-Putnam method. J. Autom. Reason. 24(1/2), 277–296 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  120. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: practical implementations and other applications. In: Design, Automation & Test in Europe (DATE), pp. 10,880–10,885. IEEE, Piscataway (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  121. Zhu, C.S., Weissenbacher, G., Sethi, D., Malik, S.: SAT-based techniques for determining backbones for post-silicon fault localisation. In: Zilic, Z., Shukla, S.K. (eds.) Intl. High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (HLDVT), pp. 84–91. IEEE, Piscataway (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Joao Marques-Silva

  2. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Sharad Malik

Authors
  1. Joao Marques-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharad Malik
    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. FORE Systems University Professor of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Edmund M. Clarke

  2. Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST), Klosterneuburg, Austria

    Thomas A. Henzinger

  3. Arbeitsbereich Formal Methods in Systems Engineering, Technische Universität Wien, Wien, Austria

    Helmut Veith

  4. Institut f. Angewandte Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikationstechnologie (IAIK), Technische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria

    Roderick Bloem

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marques-Silva, J., Malik, S. (2018). Propositional SAT Solving. In: Clarke, E., Henzinger, T., Veith, H., Bloem, R. (eds) Handbook of Model Checking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10574-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10575-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation