Skip to main content
Log in

Running time experiments on some algorithms for solving propositional satisfiability problems

  • Knowledge And Structures: How To Represent, Handle, And Find Knowledge And Insight Into Structure
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Satisfiability problems are of importance for many practical problems. They are NP-complete problems. However, some instances of the SAT problem can be solved efficiently. This paper reports on a study concerning the behaviour of a variety of algorithmic approaches to this problem tested on a set of problems collected at FAW. The results obtained give a lot of insight into the algorithms and problems, yet also show some general technical and methodological problems associated with such comparisons.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. Brayton, G.D. Hachtel, C.T. McMullen and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,Logic Minimization Algorithms for VLSI Synthesis (Kluwer Academic, 1984).

  2. R.E. Bryant, Graph based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation, IEEE Trans. Comp. C-35 (1986).

  3. W. Buettner and H. Simonis, Embedding Boolean expressions into logic programming, J. Symbolic Comp. (1987) 191 205.

  4. M. Buro and H. Kleine-Bünig, Report on a SAT Competition, Bericht Nr. 110, Reihe Informatik, Universität Paderborn (1992).

  5. J. Cohen, Constraint logic programming languages, Commun. ACM 33 (1990) 52–68.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Colmerauer, An introduction to Prolog III. Commun. ACM 33 (1990) 69–90.

    Google Scholar 

  7. ESPRIT P1106 Consortium. Final Report Part 1 (January 1990).

  8. K. Estenfeld et al., PROLOG-XT, Corporate Research and Development, Research Laboratories for Applied Computer Science and Software Information and Knowledge Processing, Siemens Confidential.

  9. F. Harche, J.N. Hooker and G.L. Thompson. A computational study of satisfiability algorithms for propositional logic, Management Science Research Report MSRR-567, Carnegie Mellon University (1991).

  10. J.N. Hooker, A quantitative approach to logical inference, Dec. Support Syst. 4 (1988) 45–69.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.N. Hooker and C. Fedjki, Branch-and-cut solution of inference problems in propositional logic, Ann. Math. Art. Int. 1 (1990) 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.G. Jeroslow and J. Wang, Solving propositional satisfiability problems, Ann. Math. Art. Int. 1 (1990) 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  13. U. Martin and T. Nipkow, Boolean unification - the story so far, J. Symbolic Comp. 7 (1989) 275–293.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Meier et al., SEPIA — an extendible Prolog system,Proc. 11th World Computer Progress IFIP'89, San Francisco (August, 1989).

  15. G. Patrizi, The equivalence of an LCP to a parametric linear program with a scalar parameter, Euro. J. Oper. Res. 51 (1991) 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Rudeanu,Boolean Functions and Equations (North-Holland, Amsterdam, London, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Sakai and Y. Sato, Boolean Groebner bases, Technical report, ICOT, Tokyo, Japan (June 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  18. U. Schöning,Logik für Informatiker, Reihe Informatik, Bd. 56, 2. Auflage (BI-Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, Wien, Zürich, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Siegel, Represèntation et utilisation de la connaissance en calcul propositionnel, Thèse de doctorat d'Etat, GIA, Faculté des Sciences de Luminy, Université Aix-Marseille (July 1987).

  20. J.H. Siekmann, Universal unification,7th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, Napa Valley, CA (1984) pp. 1–42.

  21. H. Simonis and M. Dincbas, Propositional calculus problems in CHIP, in:Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming (1990).

  22. C. Spera, Computational results for solving large general satisfiability problems, University of Siena, Department of Mathematics, Rapporto Matematico N. 222 (August 1990).

  23. G.J. Sussman and G.L. Steele, CONSTRAINTS — a language for expressing almost-hierarchical descriptions, Art. Int. J. 14 (1980).

  24. K. Trümper and F.J. Radermacher, Analyse der Leistungsfähigkeit eines neuen Systems zur Auswertung aussagenlogischer Probleme, FAW-TR-90003, Version 1 (February 1990).

  25. P. Van Hentenryck,Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming, Logic Programming Series (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Wang, Rule-based expert systems and discrete optimization, Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (July 1990).

  27. L. Wos, R. Overbeek, E. Lusk and J. Boyle,Automatical Reasoning (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mayer, J., Mitterreiter, I. & Josef Radermacher, F. Running time experiments on some algorithms for solving propositional satisfiability problems. Ann Oper Res 55, 139–178 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02031719

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02031719

Keywords

Navigation