Abstract
Recent work has shown how to use OBDDs for satisfiability solving. The idea of this approach, which we call symbolic quantifier elimination, is to view an instance of propositional satisfiability as an existentially quantified propositional formula. Satisfiability solving then amounts to quantifier elimination; once all quantifiers have been eliminated we are left with either 1 or 0. Our goal in this work is to study the effectiveness of symbolic quantifier elimination as an approach to satisfiability solving. To that end, we conduct a direct comparison with the DPLL-based ZChaff, as well as evaluate a variety of optimization techniques for the symbolic approach. In comparing the symbolic approach to ZChaff, we evaluate scalability across a variety of classes of formulas. We find that no approach dominates across all classes. While ZChaff dominates for many classes of formulas, the symbolic approach is superior for other classes of formulas.
Once we have demonstrated the viability of the symbolic approach, we focus on optimization techniques for this approach. We study techniques from constraint satisfaction for finding a good plan for performing the symbolic operations of conjunction and of existential quantification. We also study various variable-ordering heuristics, finding that while no heuristic seems to dominate across all classes of formulas, the maximum-cardinality search heuristic seems to offer the best overall performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amir, E., McIlraith, S.: Solving satisfiability using decomposition and the most constrained subproblem. In: SAT 2001 (June 2001)
Arnborg, S., Corneil, D., Proskurowski, A.: Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Math. 8, 277–284 (1987)
Balcazar, J.: Self-reducibility. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 41(3), 367–388 (1990)
Beatty, D., Bryant, R.: Formally verifying a microprocessor using a simulation methodology. In: Proc. 31st Design Automation Conference, pp. 596–602. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)
Biere, A.: Resolve and expand. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 59–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDD. In: Proc. 36th Conf. on Design Automation, pp. 317–320 (1999)
Block, M., Gröpl, C., Preuß, H., Proömel, H.L., Srivastav, A.: Efficient ordering of state variables and transition relation partitions in symbolic model checking. Technical report, Institute of Informatics, Humboldt University of Berlin (1997)
Bouquet, F.: Gestion de la dynamicite et enumeration d’implicants premiers, une approche fondee sur les Diagrammes de Decision Binaire. PhD thesis (1999)
Bryant, R.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Comp. C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)
Burch, J., Clarke, E., Long, D.: Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In: Int. Conf. on Very Large Scale Integration (1991)
Burch, J., Clarke, E., McMillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Infomation and Computation 98(2), 142–170 (1992)
Chatalic, P., Simon, L.: Multi-Resolution on compressed sets of clauses. In: Twelfth International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2000), pp. 2–10 (2000)
Chung, P., Hajj, I., Patel, J.: Efficient variable ordering heuristics for shared robdd. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Circuits and Systems (1993)
Cimatti, A., Roveri, M.: Conformant planning via symbolic model checking. J. of AI Research 13, 305–338 (2000)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
Coarfa, C., Demopoulos, D.D., Aguirre, A.S.M., Subramanian, D., Vardi, M.: Random 3-SAT: The plot thickens. Constraints, 243–261 (2003)
Crawford, J., Baker, A.: Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. In: AAAI, vol. 2, pp. 1092–1097 (1994)
Dalmau, V., Kolaitis, P., Vardi, M.: Constraint satisfaction, bounded treewidth, and finite-variable logics. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) CP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2470, pp. 310–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Damiano, R.F., Kukula, J.H.: Checking satisfiability of a conjunction of BDDs. In: DAC 2003 (2003)
Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Journal of the ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)
Davis, S., Putnam, M.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)
Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)
Dechter, R., Pearl, J.: Network-based heuristics for constraint-satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 34, 1–38 (1987)
Dechter, R., Rish, I.: Directional resolution: The Davis-Putnam procedure, revisited. In: KR 1994: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 134–145 (1994)
Downey, R., Fellows, M.: Parametrized Complexity. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Franco, J., Kouril, M., Schlipf, J., Ward, J., Weaver, S., Dransfield, M., Vanfleet, W.: SBSAT: a state-based, BDD-based satisfiability solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 398–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Freuder, E.: Complexity of k-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proc. AAAI 1990, pp. 4–9 (1990)
Fujita, M., Fujisawa, H., Kawato, N.: Evaluation and improvements of Boolean comparison method based on binary decision disgrams. In: ICCAD 1988 (1988)
Geist, D., Beer, H.: Efficient model checking by automated ordering of transition relation partitions. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 299–310. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT solver (2002)
Groote, J.F.: Hiding propositional constants in BDDs. In: FMSD, vol. 8, pp. 91–96 (1996)
Gupta, A., Yang, Z., Ashar, P., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Partition-based decision heuristics for image computation using SAT and BDDs. In: ICCAD 2001 (2001)
Hojati, R., Krishnan, S.C., Brayton, R.K.: Early quantification and partitioned transition relations, pp. 12–19 (1996)
Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Proc. Eur. Conf. on AI, pp. 359–379 (1992)
Khurshid, S., Marinov, D., Shlyyakhter, I., Jackson, D.: A case for efficient solution enumeration. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 272–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Koster, A., Bodlaender, H., van Hoesel, S.: Treewidth: Computational experiments. Technical report (2001)
Le Berre, D., Simon, L.: The essentials of the SAT 2003 competition. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 452–467. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Malik, S., Wang, A., Brayton, R., Sangiovanni Vincentelli, A.: Logic verification using binary decision diagrams in a logic synthesis environment. In: ICCAD 1988 (1988)
Minato, S.: Binary Decision Diagrams and Applications to VLSI CAD. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)
Motter, D.B., Markov, I.L.: A compressed breadth-first search for satisfiability. In: Mount, D.M., Stein, C. (eds.) ALENEX 2002. LNCS, vol. 2409, pp. 29–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Ranjan, R., Aziz, A., Brayton, R., Plessier, B., Pixley, C.: Efficient BDD algorithms for FSM synthesis and verification. In: Proc. of IEEE/ACM Int. Workshop on Logic Synthesis (1995)
Aguirre, A.S.M., Vardi, M.Y.: Random 3-SAT and BDDs: The plot thickens further. In: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 121–136 (2001)
Schaefer, T.: The complexity of satisfiability problems. In: STOC 1978, pp. 216–226 (1978)
Selman, B., Mitchell, D.G., Levesque, H.J.: Generating hard satisfiability problems.  81(1-2), 17–29 (1996)
Somenzi, F.: CUDD: CU decision diagram package (1998)
Tarjan, R.E., Yannakakis, M.: Simple linear-time algorithms to tests chordality of graphs, tests acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM J. Comput. 13(3), 566–579 (1984)
Uribe, T.E., Stickel, M.E.: Ordered binary decision diagrams and the Davis-Putnam procedure. In: 1st Int. Conf. on Constraints in Computational Logics, pp. 34–49 (1994)
Urquhart, A.: The complexity of propositional proofs. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 1, 425–467 (1995)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: The quest for efficient Boolean satisfiability solvers. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 17–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pan, G., Vardi, M.Y. (2005). Search vs. Symbolic Techniques in Satisfiability Solving. In: Hoos, H.H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. SAT 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3542. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11527695_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11527695_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27829-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31580-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)