Abstract

We introduce an algorithm for finding a minimal unsatisfiable subset (MUS) of a CNF formula. We have implemented and evaluated the algorithm and found that its performance is very competitive on a wide range of benchmarks, including both formulas that are close to minimal unsatisfiable and formulas containing MUSes that are only a small fraction of the formula size.

In our simple but effective algorithm we associate assignments with clauses. The notion of associated assignment has emerged from our work on a Brouwer’s fixed point approximation algorithm applied to satisfiability. There, clauses are regarded to be entities that order the set of assignments and that can select an assignment to be associated with them, resulting in a Pareto optimal agreement.

In this presentation we abandon all terminology from this theory which is superfluous with respect to the recent objective and make the paper self contained.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nam, G.J., Sakallah, K.A., Rutenbar, R.A.: Satisfiability-based layout revisited: Detailed routing of complex FPGAs vis search-based Boolean SAT. In: FPGA, pp. 167–175 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolants and symbolic model checking. In: Cook, B., Podelski, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4349, pp. 89–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rintanen, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Planning as satisfiability: parallel plans and algorithms for plan search. Artif. Intell. 170(12-13), 1031–1080 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Extracting Small Unsatisfiable Cores from Unsatisfiable Boolean Formula. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, 6th International Conference, SAT 2003. Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, May 5-8 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oh, Y., Mneimneh, M.N., Andraus, Z.S., Sakallah, K.A., Markov, I.L.: AMUSE: A minimally-unsatisfiable subformula extractor. In: Malik, S., Fix, L., Kahng, A.B. (eds.) DAC, pp. 518–523. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grégoire, É., Mazure, B., Piette, C.: Local-search extraction of MUSes. Constraints 12(3), 325–344 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lynce, I., Silva, J.P.M.: On computing minimum unsatisfiable cores. In: H. Hoos, H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liffiton, M.H., Sakallah, K.A.: On finding all minimally unsatisfiable subformulas [25], 173–186Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liffiton, M.H., Sakallah, K.A.: Algorithms for computing minimal unsatisfiable subsets of constraints. Journal of Automated Reasoning 40(1), 1–33 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wieringa, S.: Finding cores using a Brouwer’s fixed point approximation algorithm. Master’s thesis, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of EWI (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Maaren, H.: Pivoting algorithms based on Boolean vector labeling. Acta Mathematica Vietnamica 22(1), 183–198 (1997)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kullmann, O., Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Categorisation of clauses in conjunctive normal forms: Minimally unsatisfiable sub-clause-sets and the lean kernel. [24] 22–35Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. [15] 61–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tamiz, M., Mardle, S.J., Jones, D.F.: Detecting IIS in infeasible linear programmes using techniques from goal programming. Computers & OR 23(2), 113–119 (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galinier, P., Hertz, A.: Solution techniques for the large set covering problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 155(3), 312–326 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Siqueira, N.J.L., Puget, J.-F.: Explanation-based generalisation of failures. In: ECAI, pp. 339–344 (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dershowitz, N., Hanna, Z., Nadel, A.: A scalable algorithm for minimal unsatisfiable core extraction. [24] 36–41Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang, J.: MUP: A minimal unsatisfiability prover. In: Tang, T.A. (ed.) ASP-DAC, pp. 432–437. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aloul, F.A., Ramani, A., Markov, I.L., Sakallah, K.A.: Solving difficult instances of Boolean satisfiability in the presence of symmetry. IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems 22(9), 1117–1137 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Darwiche, A.: New advances in compiling CNF into decomposable negation normal form. In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) ECAI, pp. 328–332. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aloul, F.A., Markov, I.L., Sakallah, K.A.: MINCE: A static global variable-ordering heuristic for SAT search and BDD manipulation. J. UCS 10(12), 1562–1596 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.): SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.): SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans van Maaren
    • 1
  • Siert Wieringa
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of EWIDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computer ScienceHelsinki University of Technology (TKK)Finland

Personalised recommendations