Satisfiability Checking of Non-clausal Formulas Using General Matings

  • Himanshu Jain
  • Constantinos Bartzis
  • Edmund Clarke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4121)


Most state-of-the-art SAT solvers are based on DPLL search and require the input formula to be in clausal form (cnf). However, typical formulas that arise in practice are non-clausal. We present a new non-clausal SAT-solver based on General Matings instead of DPLL search. Our technique is able to handle non-clausal formulas involving ∨,∧,¬ operators without destroying their structure or introducing new variables. We present techniques for performing search space pruning, learning, non-chronological backtracking in the context of a General Matings based SAT solver. Experimental results show that our SAT solver is competitive to current state-of-the-art SAT solvers on a class of non-clausal benchmarks.


General Mating Conjunctive Normal Form Propositional Formula Satisfying Assignment Heuristic Local Search 
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.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Siege (version 4) sat solver,
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Andrews, P.B.: Theorem Proving via General Matings. J. ACM 28(2), 193–214 (1981)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrews, P.B.: An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: to Truth through Proof, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bibel, W.: On Matrices with Connections. J. ACM 28(4), 633–645 (1981)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ganai, M.K., Ashar, P., Gupta, A., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Combining Strengths of Circuit-based and CNF-based Algorithms for a High-performance SAT solver. In: DAC (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: A Fast and Robust Sat-Solver. In: DATE (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP - A New Search Algorithm for Satisfiability. In: ICCAD, pp. 220–227 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McAllester, D., Selman, B., Kautz, H.: Evidence for invariants in local search. In: AAAI, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 321–326 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meier, A., Sorge, V.: A new set of algebraic benchmark problems for sat solvers. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 459–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: DAC, June 2001, pp. 530–535 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 2(3) (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smullyan, R.M.: First Order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1968)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thiffault, C., Bacchus, F., Walsh, T.: Solving Non-clausal Formulas with DPLL Search. In: SAT (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, H.: Sato: An efficient propositional prover. In: CADE-14, pp. 272–275 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.W., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD, pp. 279–285 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Himanshu Jain
    • 1
  • Constantinos Bartzis
    • 1
  • Edmund Clarke
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations