Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved algorithms for optimal length resolution refutation in difference constraint systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the design and analysis of improved algorithms for determining the optimal length resolution refutation (OLRR) of a system of difference constraints over an integral domain. The problem of finding short explanations for unsatisfiable Difference Constraint Systems (DCS) finds applications in a number of design domains including program verification, proof theory, real-time scheduling, and operations research. These explanations have also been called “certificates” and “refutations” in the literature. This problem was first studied in Subramani (J Autom Reason 43(2):121–137, 2009), wherein the first polynomial time algorithm was proposed. In this paper, we propose two new strongly polynomial algorithms which improve on the existing time bound. Our first algorithm, which we call the edge progression approach, runs in O(n 2 · k + m · n · k) time, while our second algorithm, which we call the edge relaxation approach, runs in O(m · n · k) time, where m is the number of constraints in the DCS, n is the number of program variables, and k denotes the length of the shortest refutation. We conducted an extensive empirical analysis of the three OLRR algorithms discussed in this paper. Our experiments indicate that in the case of sparse graphs, the new algorithms discussed in this paper are superior to the algorithm in Subramani (J Autom Reason 43(2):121–137, 2009). Likewise, in the case of dense graphs, the approach in Subramani (J Autom Reason 43(2):121–137, 2009) is superior to the algorithms described in this paper. One surprising observation is the superiority of the edge relaxation algorithm over the edge progression algorithm in all cases, although both algorithms have the same asymptotic time complexity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alekhnovich M, Buss S, Moran S, Pitassi T (1998) Minimum propositional proof length is NP-hard to linearly approximate. In: Mathematical foundations of computer science (MFCS), Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer, Berlin

  2. P. Beame, T. Pitassi (1996) Simplified and improved resolution lower bounds. In: 37th Annual symposium on foundations of computer science, IEEE, pp 274–282. Burlington, Vermont, 14–16 October 1996

  3. Buss SR, Pitassi T (1997) Resolution and the weak pigeonhole principle. In: CSL: 11th Workshop on computer science logic. LNCS, Springer, Berlin

  4. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2001) Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Demetrescu C, Goldberg AV, Johnson D (2005) 9th DIMACS implementation challenge—shortest paths. http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~challenge9/

  6. de Moura LM, Owre S, Ruess H, Rushby JM, Shankar N (2004) The ICS decision procedures for embedded deduction. In: IJCAR, pp 218–222

  7. Fourier JBJ (1827) Reported in: Analyse de travaux de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, pendant l’annee 1824, Partie Mathematique, Histoire de ’Academie Royale de Sciences de l’Institue de France 7, pp xlvii-lv. (Partial English translation in: Kohler DA (1973) Translation of a report by fourier on his work on linear inequalities. Opsearch 10:38–42), Academic Press, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ford J, Shankar N (2002) Formal verification of a combination decision procedure. In: CADE, pp 347–362

  9. Goldberg AV (1995) Scaling algorithms for the shortest paths problem. SIAM J Comput 24(3): 494–504

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Haken A (1985) The intractability of resolution. Theor Comput Sci 39(2–3): 297–308

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Han CC, Lin KJ (1989) Job scheduling with temporal distance constraints. Technical report UIUCDCS-R-89-1560, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  12. Hochbaum DS, Naor J (1994) Simple and fast algorithms for linear and integer programs with two variables per inequality. SIAM J Comput 23(6): 1179–1192

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA (1999) Integer and combinatorial optimization. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinedo M (1995) Scheduling: theory, algorithms, and systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clif

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Seshia SA, Bryant RE (2004) Deciding quantifier-free presburger formulas using parameterized solution bounds. In: LICS, pp 100–109

  17. Schrijver A (1987) Theory of linear and integer programming. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stankovic JA, Ramamritham K (1988) Hard real-time systems. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos

  19. Subramani K (2004) On deciding the non-emptiness of 2SAT polytopes with respect to first order queries. Math Logic Quart 50(3): 281–292

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Subramani K (2004) Optimal length tree-like resolution refutations for 2sat formulas. ACM Trans Comput Logic 5(2): 316–320

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Subramani K (2005) An analysis of totally clairvoyant scheduling. J Schedul 8(2): 113–133

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Subramani K (2005) A comprehensive framework for specifying clairvoyance, constraints and periodicty in real-time scheduling. Comput J 48(3): 259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Subramani K (2009) Optimal length resolution refutations of difference constraint systems. J Autom Reason (JAR) 43(2): 121–137

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Tseitin G (1970) On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, pp 115–125

  25. Urquhart A (1995) The complexity of propositional proofs. Bull Symbol Logic 1(4): 425–467

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams HP (1976) Fourier–Motzkin elimination extension to integer programming. J Combin Theory 21: 118–123

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LDCSEE, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    K. Subramani & Matthew Williamson

  2. Department of Mathematics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Xiaofeng Gu

Authors
  1. K. Subramani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaofeng Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Subramani.

Additional information

Jim Woodcock

K. Subramani’s research was supported in part by a research grant from the Air-Force Office of Scientific Research under contract FA9550-06-1-0050 and in part by the National Science Foundation through Award CCF-0827397. A portion of this research was conducted at the Carnegie Mellon University, where the first author was a Visiting Professor.

M. Williamson’s research was supported by the NASA WV Space Grant Consortium through a NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Number NNX10AK62H.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Subramani, K., Williamson, M. & Gu, X. Improved algorithms for optimal length resolution refutation in difference constraint systems. Form Asp Comp 25, 319–341 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-011-0186-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-011-0186-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation