Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 126, Issue 3, pp 1205–1209 | Cite as

Hard satisfiable instances for DPLL-type algorithms

  • S. I. Nikolenko


We address lower bounds on the time complexity of algorithms solving the propositional satisfiability problem. Namely, we consider two DPLL-type algorithms, enhanced with the unit clause and pure literal heuristics. Exponential lower bounds for solving satisfiability on provably satisfiable formulas are proven. Bibliography: 11 titles.


Lower Bound Time Complexity Satisfiability Problem Unit Clause Propositional Satisfiability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Achlioptas, P. Beame, and M. Molloy, “A sharp threshold in proof complexity,” in: Proceedings of the 33th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2001), pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.-N. Chao and J. Franco, “Probabilistic analysis of a generalization of the unit clause literal selection heuristic for the k-satisfiability problem,” Inform. Sci., 51, 289–314 (1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Y. Dantsin, E. A. Hirsch, S. V. Ivanov, and M. A. Vsemirnov, “Algorithms for SAT and upper bounds on their complexity,” Zap. Nauchn. Semin. POMI, 277, 14–46 (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland, “A machine program for theorem-proving,” Comm. ACM, 5, 394–397 (1962).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Davis and H. Putnam, “A computing procedure for quantification theory,” J. ACM, 7, 201–215 (1960).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Z. Galil, “On the complexity of regular resolution and the Davis-Putnam procedure,” Theor. Comput. Sci., 4, 27–46 (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. A. Hirsch, “New worst-case upper bounds for SAT,” J. Automat. Reason., 24, 397–420 (2000).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. A. Hirsch, “SAT local search algorithms: worst-case study,” J. Automat. Reason., 24, 127–143 (2000).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Pudlak and R. Impagliazzo, “A lower bound for DLL-algorithms for k-SAT,” Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (2000), pp. 128–136.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. S. Tseitin, “On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus,” in: Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Matematical Logic, Part II. Consultants Bureau, New York-London (1968), pp. 115–125.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Urquhart, “Hard examples for resolution,” J. ACM., 34, 209–219 (1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. I. Nikolenko

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations