Advertisement

Memory Efficient All-Solutions SAT Solver and Its Application for Reachability Analysis

  • Orna Grumberg
  • Assaf Schuster
  • Avi Yadgar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3312)

Abstract

This work presents a memory-efficient All-SAT engine which, given a propositional formula over sets of important and non-important variables, returns the set of all the assignments to the important variables, which can be extended to solutions (satisfying assignments) to the formula. The engine is built using elements of modern SAT solvers, including a scheme for learning conflict clauses and non-chronological backtracking. Re-discovering solutions that were already found is avoided by the search algorithm itself, rather than by adding blocking clauses. As a result, the space requirements of a solved instance do not increase when solutions are found. Finding the next solution is as efficient as finding the first one, making it possible to solve instances for which the number of solutions is larger than the size of the main memory.

We show how to exploit our All-SAT engine for performing image computation and use it as a basic block in achieving full reachability which is purely SAT-based (no BDDs involved).

We implemented our All-SAT solver and reachability algorithm using the state-of-the-art SAT solver Chaff [19] as a code base. The results show that our new scheme significantly outperforms All-SAT algorithms that use blocking clauses, as measured by the execution time, the memory requirement, and the number of steps performed by the reachability analysis.

Keywords

Model Check Conjunctive Normal Form Propositional Formula Satisfying Assignment Reachability Analysis 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Landver, A.: On-the-fly model checking of RCTL formulas. In: 10th Computer Aided Verification, pp. 184–194 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In: D. (ed.) IEEE Computer Society Press (June 1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birnbaum, E., Lozinskii, E.L.: The good old davis-putnam procedure helps counting models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 10, 457–477 (1999)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE transactions on Computers C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Information and Computation 98(2), 142–170 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chauhan, P., Clarke, E.M., Kroening, D.: Using SAT based image computation for reachability analysis. Technical Report CMU-CS-03-151, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chauhan, P.P., Clarke, E.M., Kroening, D.: A SAT-based algorithm for reparameterization in symbolic simulation. In: DAC (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. CACM 5(7) (July 1962)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. JACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In: DATE (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta, A., Yang, Z., Ashar, P., Gupta, A.: SAT-based image computation with application in reachability analysis. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 354–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bayardo Jr., R.J., Pehoushek, J.D.: Counting models using connected components. In: IAAI, pp. 157–162. AAAI, Menlo Park (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang, H.J., Park, I.C.: SAT-based unbounded symbolic model checking. In: DAC (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lahiri, S.K., Bryant, R.E., Cook, B.: A symbolic approach to predicate abstraction. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 141–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Letz, R.: Advances in decision procedures for quantified boolean formulas. In: IJCAR (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, C.M., Anbulagan: Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. IJCAI 1, 366–371 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: Conflict analysis in search algorithms for propositional satisfiability. In: IEEE ICTAI (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Computer Aided Verification (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: 39th Design Aotomation Conference, DAC 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plaisted, D.: Method for design verification of hardware and non-hardware systems. United States Patents, 6,131, 078 (October 2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roth, D.: On the hardness of approximate reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 82(1-2) (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sapra, S., Theobald, M., Clarke, E.M.: SAT-based algorithms for logic minimization. In: ICCD (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shtrichman, O.: Tuning SAT checkers for bounded model checking. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berkeley University of California. Espresso, two level boolean minimizer (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yadgar, A.: Solving All-SAT problem for reachability analysis. M.Sc. thesis, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Department of Computer Schience (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, H.: SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In: McCune, W. (ed.) CADE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1249, Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.W., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orna Grumberg
    • 1
  • Assaf Schuster
    • 1
  • Avi Yadgar
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentTechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations