Local-Search Techniques for Propositional Logic Extended with Cardinality Constraints

  • Lengning Liu
  • Mirosław Truszczyński
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2833)


We study local-search satisfiability solvers for propositional logic extended with cardinality atoms, that is, expressions that provide explicit ways to model constraints on cardinalities of sets. Adding cardinality atoms to the language of propositional logic facilitates modeling search problems and often results in concise encodings. We propose two ”native” local-search solvers for theories in the extended language. We also describe techniques to reduce the problem to standard propositional satisfiability and allow us to use off-the-shelf SAT solvers. We study these methods experimentally. Our general finding is that native solvers designed specifically for the extended language perform better than indirect methods relying on SAT solvers.


Vertex Cover Search Problem Propositional Atom Truth Assignment Cardinality Constraint 
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.
    Aloul, F.A., Ramani, A., Markov, I., Sakallah, K.: Pbs: a backtrack-search pseudo-boolean solver and optimizer. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability, pp. 346–353 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barth, P.: A davis-putnam based elimination algorithm for linear pseudo-boolean optimization. Technical report, Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, MPI-I- 95-2-003 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benhamou, B., Sais, L., Siegel, P.: Two proof procedures for a cardinality based language in propositional calculus. In: Enjalbert, P., Mayr, E.W., Wagner, K.W. (eds.) STACS 1994. LNCS, vol. 775, pp. 71–82. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dixon, H.E., Ginsberg, M.L.: Inference methods for a pseudo-boolean satisfiability solver. In: The 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    East, D., Truszczyński, M.: Propositional satisfiability in answer-set programming. In: Baader, F., Brewka, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) KI 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2174, pp. 138–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2001); Full version submitted for publication, available at CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: a fast and robust sat-solver. In: DATE 2002, pp. 142–149 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, C.M.: Integrating equivalency reasoning into davis-putnam procedure. In: Proccedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pp. 291–296 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, C.M., Anbulagan, M.: Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A new search algorithm for satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 506–521 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference (DAC) (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prestwich, S.D.: Randomised backtracking for linear pseudo-boolean constraint problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Integration of AI and OR techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimisation Problems, CPAIOR 2002, pp. 7–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selman, B., Kautz, H.A., Cohen, B.: Noise strategies for improving local search. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1994), Seattle, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walser, J.P.: Solving linear pseudo-boolean constraints with local search. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1997, pp. 269–274. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, H.: SATO: an efficient propositional prover. In: McRobbie, M.A., Slaney, J.K. (eds.) CADE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1104, pp. 308–312. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lengning Liu
    • 1
  • Mirosław Truszczyński
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations