Implicates and prime implicates in Random 3-SAT

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 81, Issue 1-2, 1996, Pages 199-222

  Schrag, Robert ^a   Crawford, James M ^b  

^a University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Finite size scaling; Knowledge compilation; Minimal nogoods; Phase transition; Prepositional satisfiability; Prime implicates; Random 3 SAT; Search

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING; RANDOM PROCESSES;

IMPLICATES; KNOWLEDGE COMPILATION; PRIME IMPLICATES; SATISFIABILITY PHASE TRANSITIONS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0030110382     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(95)00053-4     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. A. Baker, Intelligent backtracking on the hardest constraint problems, experimental and theoretical results, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR (1995).
2. A. Chandra and G. Markowsky, On the number of prime implicants, Discrete Math. 24 (1978) 7-11.
3. V. Chvátal and E. Szemerédi, Many hard examples for resolution, J. ACM 35 (4) (1988) 759-768.
4. J.M. Crawford and L.D. Auton, Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems, in: Proceedings AAAI-93, Washington, DC (1993) 21-27.
5. J.M. Crawford and L.D. Auton, Experimental results on the crossover point in random 3-SAT, Artif. Intell. 81 (1996) 31-57 (this volume).
6. R. Dechter, Enhancement schemes for constraint processing: Backjumping, learning, and cutset decomposition, Artif. Intell. 41 (1990) 273-312.
7. J. de Kleer, An assumption-based TMS, Artif. Intell. 28 (2) (1987) 127-162.
8. J. de Kleer, An improved incremental algorithm for generating prime implicates, in: Proceedings AAAI-92, San Jose, CA (1992) 780-785.
9. A. del Val, Tractable databases: how to make prepositional unit resolution complete through compilation, in: J. Doyle, E. Sandewall and P. Torassi, eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings Fourth International Conference (KR'94) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1994) 551-561.
10. E. Freuder, Synthesizing constraint expressions, Commun. ACM 21 (11) (1978) 958-966.
11. I.P. Gent and T. Walsh, The hardest random SAT problems, in: B. Nebel and L. Dreschler-Fischer, eds., KI-94: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 18th German Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 861 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994) 355-366.
12. I.P. Gent and T. Walsh, The satisfiability constraint gap, Artif. Intell. 81 (1996) 59-80 (this volume).
13. T. Hogg and C. Williams, The hardest constraint problems: A double phase transition, Artif. Intell 69 (1994) 359-377.
14. H. Kautz and B. Selman, An empirical evaluation of knowledge compilation by theory approximation, in: Proceedings AAAI-94, Seattle, WA (1994) 155-161.
15. S. Kirkpatrick and B. Selman, Critical behavior in the satisfiability of random Boolean expressions, Science 264 (1994) 1297-1301.
16. A.K. Mackworth, Constraint satisfaction, in: S. Shapiro, ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Wiley, New York, 1992) 285-293.
17. D.G. Mitchell, B. Selman and H.J. Levesque, Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems, in: Proceedings of AAAI-92 (1992) 459-465.
18. R. Reiter and J. de Kleer, Foundations of assumption-based truth maintenance systems: preliminary report, in: Proceedings AAAI-87, Seattle, WA (1987) 183-188.
19. R. Rymon, Search through systematic set enumeration, in: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (KR'92), Cambridge, MA (1992) 539-550.
20. B. Selman and H. Kautz, Knowledge compilation using Horn approximations, in: Proceedings AAAI-91, Boston, MA (1991) 904-909.
21. B. Selman and S. Kirkpatrick, Critical behavior in the computational cost of satisfiability testing, Artif. Intell. 81 (1996) 273-295 (this volume).
22. P. Tison, Generalization of consensus theory and application to the minimization of Boolean functions, IEEE Trans. Electronic Comput. 16 (4) (1967) 446-456.
23. C. Williams and T. Hogg, Exploiting the deep structure of constraint satisfaction problems, Artif. Intell. 70 (1994) 73-117.