Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficient data structures for backtrack search SAT solvers

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The implementation of efficient Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) solvers entails the utilization of highly efficient data structures, as illustrated by most of the recent state-of-the-art SAT solvers. However, it is in general hard to compare existing data structures, since different solvers are often characterized by fairly different algorithmic organizations and techniques, and by different search strategies and heuristics. This paper aims the evaluation of data structures for backtrack search SAT solvers, under a common unbiased SAT framework. In addition, advantages and drawbacks of each existing data structure are identified. Finally, new data structures are proposed, that are competitive with the most efficient data structures currently available, and that may be preferable for the next generation SAT solvers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. F. Bacchus, Exploiting the computational tradeoff of more reasoning and less searching, in: Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (2002) pp. 7–16.

  2. L. Baptista and J.P. Marques-Silva, Using randomization and learning to solve hard real-world instances of satisfiability, in: International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, ed. R. Dechter, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1894 (2000) pp. 489–494.

  3. R. Bayardo, Jr. and R. Schrag, Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1997) pp. 203–208.

  4. O. Coudert, On solving covering problems, in: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (1996) pp. 197–202.

  5. M. Davis, G. Logemann and D. Loveland, A machine program for theorem-proving, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 5 (1996) 394–397.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. M. Davis and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 7 (1960) 201–215.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. A.V. Gelder and Y.K. Tsuji, Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing, in: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge, eds. D.S. Johnson and M.A. Trick (American Mathematical Society, 1993).

  8. C.P. Gomes, B. Selman and H. Kautz, Boosting combinatorial search through randomization, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1998) pp. 431–437.

  9. J.F. Groote and J.P. Warners, The propositional formula Checker Heerhugo, in: Proceedings of SAT 2000, eds. I. Gent, H. van Maaren and T. Walsh (IOS Press, 2000) pp. 261–281.

  10. C.M. Li and Anbulagan, Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (1997) pp. 341–355.

  11. J.P. Marques-Silva, Algebraic simplification techniques for propositional satisfiability, in: International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, ed. R. Dechter, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1894 (2000) pp. 537–542.

  12. J.P. Marques-Silva and K.A. Sakallah, GRASP: A new search algorithm for satisfiability, in: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (1996) pp. 220–227.

  13. J.P. Marques-Silva and K.A. Sakallah Boolean satisfiability in electronic design automation, in: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (2000) pp. 675–680.

  14. N. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference (2001) pp. 530–535.

  15. B. Selman and H. Kautz, Domain-independent extensions to GSAT: Solving large structured satisfiability problems, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1993) pp. 290–295.

  16. R. Zabih and D.A. McAllester, A rearrangement search strategy for determining propositional satisfiability, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1988) pp. 155–160.

  17. H. Zhang, SATO: An efficient propositional prover, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction (1997) pp. 272–275.

  18. H. Zhang and M. Stickel, Implementing the Davis-Putnam method, in: Proceedings of SAT 2000, eds. I. Gent, H. van Maaren and T. Walsh (IOS Press, 2000) pp. 309–326.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IST/INESC-ID, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Inês Lynce & João Marques-Silva

Authors
  1. Inês Lynce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Marques-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J. Efficient data structures for backtrack search SAT solvers. Ann Math Artif Intell 43, 137–152 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-0425-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-0425-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation