Deterministic Algorithms for k-SAT Based on Covering Codes and Local Search

  • Evgeny Dantsin
  • Andreas Goerdt
  • Edward A. Hirsch
  • Uwe Schöning
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)


We show that satisfiability of formulas in k-CNF can be decided deterministically in time close to (2k/(k + 1))n, where n is the number of variables in the input formula. This is the best known worst-case upper bound for deterministic k-SAT algorithms. Our algorithm can be viewed as a derandomized version of Schöning’s probabilistic algorithm presented in [15]. The key point of our algorithm is the use of covering codes together with local search. Compared to other “weakly exponential” algorithms, our algorithm is technically quite simple. We also show how to improve the bound above by moderate technical effort. For 3-SAT the improved bound is 1.481n.


Local Search Steklov Institute Deterministic Algorithm Propositional Formula Probabilistic Algorithm 
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.
    R. B. Ash. Information Theory. Dover, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Bolc and J. Cytowski. Search Methods for Artificial Intelligence. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Cohen, I. Honkala, S. Litsyn, and A. Lobstein. Covering Codes, volume 54 of Mathematical Library. Elsevier, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Dantsin. Two propositional proof systems based on the splitting method (in Russian). Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov LOMI, 105:24–44, 1981. English translation: Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 22(3):1293–1305, 1983.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. A. Hirsch. Two new upper bounds for SAT. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA’98, pages 521–530, 1998. A journal version is to appear in Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. Kullmann. Worst-case analysis, 3-SAT decision and lower bounds: approaches for improved SAT algorithms. In D. Du, J. Gu, and P. M. Pardalos, editors, Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications (DIMACS Workshop March 11–13, 1996), volume 35 of DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 261–313. AMS, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Kullmann. New methods for 3-SAT decision and worst-case analysis. Theoretical Computer Science, 223(1–2):1–72, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Kullmann and H. Luckhardt. Deciding propositional tautologies: Algorithms and their complexity. Preprint, 82 pages, A journal version is submitted to Information and Computation, January 1997.
  9. 9.
    S. Minton, M. D. Johnston, A. B. Philips, and P. Lair. Minimizing conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems. Artificial Intelligence, 58:161–205, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Monien and E. Speckenmeyer. Solving satisfiability in less then 2n steps. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 10:287–295, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. H. Papadimitriou. On selecting a satisfying truth assignment. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS’91, pages 163–169, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Paturi, P. Pudlák, M. E. Saks, and F. Zane. An improved exponential-time algorithm for k-SAT. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS’98, pages 628–637, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Paturi, P. Pudlák, and F. Zane. Satisfiability coding lemma. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS’97, pages 566–574, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Schiermeyer. Pure literal look ahead: An O(1,497n) 3-satisfiability algorithm. Workshop on the Satisfiability Problem, Siena, April 29–May 3, 1996. Technical Report 96-230, University Köln, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U. Schöning. A probabilistic algorithm for k-SAT and constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS’99, pages 410–414, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Zhang. Number of models and satisfiability of sets of clauses. Theoretical Computer Science, 155:277–288, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evgeny Dantsin
    • 1
  • Andreas Goerdt
    • 2
  • Edward A. Hirsch
    • 3
  • Uwe Schöning
    • 4
  1. 1.Steklov Institute of MathematicsSt.PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Fakultät für InformatikTU ChemnitzChemnitzGermany
  3. 3.Steklov Institute of MathematicsSt.PetersburgRussia
  4. 4.Abteilung Theoretische InformatikUniversität UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations