Equivalent literal propagation in the DLL procedure

Discrete Applied Mathematics

Volumn 130, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 251-276

  Li, Chu Min ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE PICARDIE JULES VERNE   (France)

Author keywords

Davis Logemann Loveland procedure; Equivalency reasoning; SAT

Indexed keywords

PROBLEM SOLVING; SET THEORY;

EQUIVALENT LITERAL PROPAGATION;

DATA STRUCTURES;

EID: 0041513053     PISSN: 0166218X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-218X(02)00407-9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. R.J. Bayardo Jr., R.C. Schrag, Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in: Proceedings of AAAI-97, Providence, Rhode Island, July 1997.
2. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, Y. Zhu, Symbolic model checking without BDDs, in: R. Cleaveland (Ed.), Proceedings of Tools and Algorithms for the Analysis and Construction of Systems (TACAS'99), Lecture notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1579, Springer, Berlin, 1999.
3. R.I. Brafman, A simplifier for propositional formulas with many binary clauses. in: Proceedings of IJCAI-01, Seattle, USA, 2001.
4. P. Chatalic, L. Simon, Zres: the old Davis-Putnam procedure meets ZBDDs, in: D. McAllester (Ed.), 17th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE'17), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), Vol. 1831, June 2000, pp. 449-454.
5. S.A. Cook, The complexity of theorem proving procedures, in: Third ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Ohio, 1971, pp. 151-158.
6. T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest, Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990, pp. 440-461.
7. J.M. Crawford, M.J. Kearns, R.E. Schapire, The minimal disagreement parity problem as a hard satisfiability problem, Draft version 1995.
8. Davis M., Logemann G., Loveland D. A machine program for theorem proving. Common. ACM. 5:1962;394-397.
9. Davis M., Putnam H. A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM. 7(3):1960;201-215.
10. O. Gabber, Z. Galil, Explicit constructions of linear size superconcentrators, in: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium Foundations of Computing Science, IEEE, New York, 1979, pp. 364-370.
11. Groote J.F., Warners J.P. The propositional formula checker HeerHugo. J. Autom. Reason. 24:2001;101-125.
12. D.G. Kirkpatrick, Topics in the complexity of combinatorial algorithms, Ph.D. dissertation, Technical Report No 74, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, December 1974.
13. D. Le Berre, Exploiting the real power of unit propagation lookahead, in: H. Kautz, B. Selman (Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT'2001), Boston, USA, june 2001, Official Proceedings of Workshop in ENDM: Electronics Notes in Discrete Mathematics.
14. C.M. Li, Anbulagan, heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems, in: Proceedings of IJCAI-97, IBN 1-55860-480-4, Nagoya, Japan, August 1997, pp. 366-371.
15. C.M. Li, Integrating equivalency reasoning into David-Putnam procedure, in: Proceedings of AAAI-2000, Austin, Tx, USA, 2000.
16. J.P. Marques-Silva, Algebraic simplification techniques for propositional satisfiability, in: Proceedings of the Sixth international conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP'2000), September 2000.
17. J.P. Marques-Silva, T. Glass, Combinational equivalence checking using satisfiability and recursive learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference (DATE), 1999.
18. J.P. Marques-Silva, K.A. Sakallah, Conflict analysis in search algorithms for propositional satisfiability, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, November 1996.
19. Marqulis G.A. Explicit construction of concentrators. Problems Inform Transmission. 9:1973;325-332.
20. F. Massacci, Using Walk-SAT and Rel-SAT for cryptographic key search, in: Proceedings of IJCAI-99, pp. 290-295.
21. S. Minato, Zero-suppressed BDDs for set manipulation in combinatorial problems, in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 1993.
22. M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, S. Malik, Chaff: engineering an Efficient SAT solver, in: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC'01), June 2001.
23. B. Selman, H. Kautz, D. McAllester, Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search, in: Proceedings of IJCAI-97, ISBN 1-55860-480-4, Nagoya, Japan, August 1997.
24. L. Simon, P. Chatalic, SatEx: a web-based framework for SAT experimentation, in: H. Kautz, B. Selman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT'2001), Boston, june 2001, Official Proceedings of Workshop in ENDM: Electronics Notes in Discrete Mathematics.
25. G. Stalmarck, A system for determining propositional logic theorems by applying values and rules to triplets that are generated from a formula, Technical Report, European Patent N 0403 454 (1995), US Patent N 5 276 897, Swedish Patent N 467 076 (1989), 1989.
26. G.S. Tseitin, On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus, in: A.D. Slisenko (Ed.), Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part 2. Consultant Bureau, New York, London, 1968, pp. 115-125.
27. Urquhart A. Hard examples for resolution. J. ACM. 34(1):1987;209-219.
28. Van Gelder A., Tsuji Y.K. Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing. Johnson D.S., Trick M. Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. 1996;American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
29. Warners J.P., Van Maaren H. A two phase algorithm for solving a class of hard satisfiability problems. Operations Res. Lett. 23:1998;81-88.
30. D.N. Warren-Smith, Digital logic systems, Electronics World Magazine, February 1999 Edition, pp. 113-118 (also see http://users.senet.com.au/̃dwsmith/concept1.htm ).
31. H. Zhang, An efficient propositional prover, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction, July 1997, pp. 272-275.