Satisfiability solvers targeting industrial instances are currently almost always based on conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) . This technique can successfully solve very large instances. Yet on small, hard problems lookahead solvers  often perform better by applying much more reasoning in each search node and then recursively splitting the search space until a solution is found.
- 1.Biere, A.: Lingeling, Plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010. FMV Technical Report 10/1, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria (2010)Google Scholar
- 2.Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving. ENTCS 89(4), 543–560 (2003)Google Scholar
- 3.Heule, M.J.H.: SmArT Solving: Tools and techniques for satisfiability solvers. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology (2008)Google Scholar
- 4.Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O., Wieringa, S., Biere, A.: Cube and conquer: Guiding CDCL SAT solvers by lookaheads, Accepted for HVC (2011)Google Scholar
- 5.Marques-Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-Driven Clause Learning SAT Solvers. FAIA, vol. 185, ch. 4, pp. 131–153. IOS Press (February 2009)Google Scholar