Skip to main content

Exact Algorithms for General CNF SAT

1998; Hirsch 2003; Schuler

  • Reference work entry
Encyclopedia of Algorithms

Keywords and Synonyms

SAT ; Boolean satisfiability              

Problem Definition

The satisfiability problem (SAT) for Boolean formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF) is one of the first NP‐complete problems [2,13]. Since its NP‐completeness currently leaves no hope for polynomial-time algorithms, the progress goes by decreasing the exponent. There are several versions of this parametrized problem that differ in the parameter used for the estimation of the running time.

Problem 1 (SAT)

Input: Formula F in CNF containing n variables, m clauses, and l literals in total.

Output: “Yes” if F has a satisfying assignment, i. e., a substitution of Boolean values for the variables that makes F true. “No” otherwise.

The bounds on the running time of SAT algorithms can be thus given in the form \( |F|^{O(1)} \cdot \alpha^n, |F|^{O(1)} \cdot \beta^m \), or \( |F|^{O(1)} \cdot \gamma^l \), where |F| is the length of a reasonable bit representation of F(i. e., the formal input to the algorithm). In fact,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 399.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    They and other researchers also noticed that α could be made smaller for a special case of the problem where the length of each clause is bounded by a constant; the reader is referred to another entry (Local search algorithms for k-SAT) of the Encyclopedia for relevant references and algorithms.

  2. 2.

    Also called DPLL due to the papers of Davis and Putnam [7] and Davis, Logemann, and Loveland [6].

Recommended Reading

  1. Calabro, C., Impagliazzo, R., Paturi, R.: A duality between clause width and clause density for SAT. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2006), pp. 252–260. IEEE Computer Society (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cook, S.A.: The Complexity of Theorem Proving Procedures. Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1971, pp. 151–158. ACM (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dantsin, E., Goerdt, A., Hirsch, E.A., Kannan, R., Kleinberg, J., Papadimitriou, C., Raghavan, P., Schöning, U.: A deterministic (2–2/(k + 1))n algorithm for k-SAT based on local search. Theor. Comput. Sci. 289(1), 69–83 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Dantsin, E., Hirsch, E.A.: Worst-Case Upper Bounds. In: Biere, A., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press (2008) To appear

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dantsin, E., Hirsch, E.A., Wolpert, A.: Clause shortening combined with pruning yields a new upper bound for deterministic SAT algorithms. In: Proceedings of CIAC-2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3998, pp. 60–68. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem‐proving. Commun. ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Hirsch, E.A.: New worst-case upper bounds for SAT. J. Autom. Reason. 24(4), 397–420 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kojevnikov, A., Kulikov, A.: A New Approach to Proving Upper Bounds for MAX-2-SAT. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2006), pp. 11–17. ACM, SIAM (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kulikov, A.: Automated Generation of Simplification Rules for SAT and MAXSAT. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3569, pp. 430–436. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kullmann, O.: New methods for 3-{SAT} decision and worst-case analysis. Theor. Comput. Sci. 223(1–2):1–72 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kullmann, O., Luckhardt, H.: Algorithms for SAT/TAUT decision based on various measures, preprint, 71 pages, http://cs-svr1.swan.ac.uk/csoliver/papers.html (1998)

  13. Levin, L.A.: Universal Search Problems. Проблемы передачи информации 9(3), 265–266, (1973). In Russian. English translation in: Trakhtenbrot, B.A.: A Survey of Russian Approaches to Perebor (Brute-force Search) Algorithms. Annals of the History of Computing 6(4), 384–400 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pudlák, P.: Satisfiability – algorithms and logic. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, MFCS'98. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1450, pp. 129–141. Springer, Berlin (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schuler, R.: An algorithm for the satisfiability problem of formulas in conjunctive normal form. J. Algorithms 54(1), 40–44 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Wahlström, M.: An algorithm for the SAT problem for formulae of linear length. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, ESA 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3669, pp. 107–118. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, J.: Generating and solving 3-SAT, MSc Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hirsch, E. (2008). Exact Algorithms for General CNF SAT. In: Kao, MY. (eds) Encyclopedia of Algorithms. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30162-4_133

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics