Advertisement

Verifying Propositional Unsatisfiability: Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Allen Van Gelder
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4501)

Abstract

The importance of producing a certificate of unsatisfiability is increasingly recognized for high performance propositional satisfiability solvers. The leading solvers develop a conflict graph as the basis for deriving (or “learning”) new clauses. Extracting a resolution derivation from the conflict graph is theoretically straightforward, but it turns out to have some surprising practical pitfalls (as well as the unsurprising problem that resolution proofs can be extremely long). These pitfalls are exposed, solutions are presented, and analyzed for worse cases. Dramatic improvements on industrial benchmarks are demonstrated.

Keywords

Conflict Graph Unit Clause Resolution Proof Antecedent Clause Clause Learning 
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.
    Baase, S., Van Gelder, A.: Computer Algorithms: Introduction to Design and Analysis, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 319–351 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: a fast and robust sat-solver. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 142–149 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 886–891 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP–a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 506–521 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moskewicz, M., et al.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: 39th Design Automation Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Gelder, A.: Decision procedures should be able to produce (easily) checkable proofs. In: CP02 Workshop on Constraints in Formal Verification, Ithaca (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Gelder, A.: Pool resolution and its relation to regular resolution and DPLL with clause learning. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 580–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating sat solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Extracting small unsatisfiable cores from unsatisfiable boolean formula. In: Proc. Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, L., et al.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Van Gelder
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, Santa Cruz CA 95060USA

Personalised recommendations