Advertisement

Applying Logic Synthesis for Speeding Up SAT

  • Niklas Een
  • Alan Mishchenko
  • Niklas Sörensson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4501)

Abstract

SAT solvers are often challenged with very hard problems that remain unsolved after hours of CPU time. The research community meets the challenge in two ways: (1) by improving the SAT solver technology, for example, perfecting heuristics for variable ordering, and (2) by inventing new ways of constructing simpler SAT problems, either using domain specific information during the translation from the original problem to CNF, or by applying a more universal CNF simplification procedure after the translation. This paper explores preprocessing of circuit-based SAT problems using recent advances in logic synthesis. Two fast logic synthesis techniques are considered: DAG-aware logic minimization and a novel type of structural technology mapping, which reduces the size of the CNF derived from the circuit. These techniques are experimentally compared to CNF-based preprocessing. The conclusion is that the proposed techniques are complementary to CNF-based preprocessing and speedup SAT solving substantially on industrial examples.

Keywords

Boolean Function Boolean Network Conjunctive Normal Form Technology Mapping Logic Synthesis 
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.
    Biere, A.: AIGER (AIGER is a format, library and set of utilities for And-Inverter Graphs (AIGs), http://fmv.jku.at/aiger/
  2. 2.
    Bjesse, P., Boralv, A.: DAG-Aware Circuit Compression For Formal Verification. In: Proc. ICCAD’04 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, D., Cong, J.: DAOmap: A Depth-Optimal Area Optimization Mapping Algorithm for FPGA Designs. In: ICCAD, pp. 752–759 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drechsler, R.: Using Synthesis Techniques in SAT Solvers. Technical Report, Intitute of Computer Schience, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Biere, A., Eén, N.: Effective Preprocessing in SAT Through Variable and Clause Elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Een, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modelling and Computation (JSAT) 2 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B.L.S. Group : ABC: A System for Sequential Synthesis and Verification, http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~alanmi/abc/
  9. 9.
    Jackson, P., Sheridan, D.: Clause Form Conversions for Boolean Circuits. In: H. Hoos, H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minato, S.: Fast Generation of Irredundant Sum-Of-Products Forms from Binary Decision Diagrams. In: Proc. SASIMI’92 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mishchenko, A., Chatterjee, S., Brayton, R.: DAG-aware AIG rewriting: A fresh look at combinational logic synthesis. In: Proc. DAC’06, pp. 532–536 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mishchenko, A., Chatterjee, S., Brayton, R.: Improvements to Technology Mapping for LUT-based FPGAs. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 26(2), 240–253 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinz, C.: SAT-Race 2006 Benchmark Set (2006), http://fmv.jku.at/sat-race-2006/
  14. 14.
    Tseitin, G.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Studies in Constr. Math. and Math. Logic (1968)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velev, M.N.: Efficient Translation of Boolean Formulas to CNF in Formal Verification of Microprocessors. In: Proc. of Conf. on Asia South Pacific Design Aut. (ASP-DAC) (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zarpas, E.: Benchmarking SAT Solvers for Bounded Model Checking. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas Een
    • 1
  • Alan Mishchenko
    • 1
  • Niklas Sörensson
    • 1
  1. 1.Cadence Berkeley Labs, Berkeley, USA, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, USA, Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations