Abstract
We introduce a parameterized class M(p) of unsatisfiable formulas that specify equivalence checking of Boolean circuits. If the parameter p is fixed, a formula of M(p) can be solved in general resolution in a linear number of resolutions. On the other hand, even though there is a polynomial time deterministic algorithm that solves formulas from M(p), the order of the polynomial is a monotone increasing function of parameter p. We give reasons why resolution based SAT-algorithms should have poor performance on this very “easy” class of formulas and provide experimental evidence that this is indeed the case.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bacchus, F.: Exploring the computational tradeoff of more reasoning and less searching. In: Fifth International Symposium on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pp. 7–16 (2002)
Ben-Sasson, E., Impagliazzo, R., Wigderson, A.: Near optimal separation of Treelike and General resolution. In: SAT 2000: Third Workshop on the Satisfiability Problem (May 2000)
BerkMin web page, http://eigold.tripod.com/BerkMin.html
Bonet, M., Pitassi, T., Raz, R.: On interpolation and automatization for Frege Systems. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(6), 1939–1967 (2000)
Brand, D.: Verification of large synthesized designs. In: Proceedings of ICCAD 1993, pp. 534–537 (1993)
Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In: Design, Automation, and Test in Europe (DATE 2002), March 2002, pp. 142–149 (2002)
Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39, 297–308 (1985)
Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT-solver. In: Proceedings of DAC 2001 (2001)
Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.: Resolution is not automatizable unless W[p] is tractable. In: Proceedings of FOCS (2001)
Sentovich, E., et al.: Sequential circuit design using synthesis and optimization. In: Proceedings of ICCAD, October 1992, pp. 328–333 (1992)
Silva, J.P.M., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability. IEEE Transactions of Computers 48, 506–521 (1999)
Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivations in propositional calculus. Studies in Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, Consultants Bureau, New York/London, 115–125 (1970)
Zchaff web page, http://ee.princeton.edu/~chaff/zchaff.php
Zhang, H.: SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction, pp. 272–275 (July 1997)
2clseq web page, http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fbacchus/2clseq.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y. (2004). How Good Can a Resolution Based SAT-solver Be?. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. SAT 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2919. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-20851-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24605-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive