Symbolic decision procedures for QBF

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3258, Issue , 2004, Pages 453-467

  Pan, Guoqiang ^a   Vardi, Moshe Y ^a  

^a Rice University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DECISION THEORY;

DECISION DIAGRAM; QBF SOLVERS; QUANTIFIER ELIMINATION; RANDOM FORMULAS; SAT SOLVERS; SAT-SOLVING; SEARCH-BASED; SYMBOLIC DECISION PROCEDURES;

BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS;

EID: 29344461242     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-30201-8_34     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. H. R. Anderson and H. Hulgaard. Boolean expression diagrams. Informaton and Computation, 179(2):194-212, 2002.
2. S. Arnborg, D.G. Corneil, and A. Proskurowski. Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Math, 8:277-284, 1987.
3. A. Ayari and D. Basin. Bounded model construction for monadic second-order logics. In Proceedings of CAV'00, 2000.
4. J. Balcazar. Self-reducibility. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 41(3):367-388, 1990.
5. A. Biere. Resolve and expand. In SAT 2004, 2004.
6. A. Biere, Cimatti A, E.M. Clarke, M. Fujita, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDD. In Proc. 36th Conf. on Design Automation, pages 317-320, 1999.
7. M. Block, C. Gröpl, H. Preuß, H. L. Proömel, and A. Srivastav. Efficient ordering of state variables and transition relation partitions in symbolic model checking. Technical report, Institute of Informatics, Humboldt University of Berlin, 1997.
8. R.E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Comp., Vol. C-35(8):677-691, August 1986.
9. H.K. Buning, M. Karpinski, and A. Flogel. Resolution for quantified Boolean formulas. Inf. and Comp., 117(1):12-18, 1995.
10. 20 states and beyond. Infomation and Computation, 98(2):142-170, 1992.
11. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, and D.E. Long. Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In Int. Conf. on Very Large Scale Integration, 1991.
12. M. Cadoli, M. Schaerf, A. Giovanardi, and M. Giovanardi. An algorithm to evaluate quantified Boolean formulae and its experimental evaluation. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 28(2):101-142, 2002.
13. P. Chatalic and L. Simon. Multi-Resolution on compressed sets of clauses. In Twelfth International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI'00), pages 2-10, 2000.
14. A. Cimatti and M. Roveri. Conformant planning via symbolic model checking. J. of AI Research, 13:305-338, 2000.
15. C. Coarfa, D. D. Demopoulos, A. San Miguel Aguirre, D. Subramanian, and M.Y. Vardi. Random 3-SAT: The plot thickens. Constraints, pages 243-261, 2003.
16. S. A. Cook. The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Proc. 3rd ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 151-158, 1971.
17. F. Copty, L. Fix, R. Fraer, E. Giunchiglia, G. Kamhi, A. Tacchella, and M.Y. Vardi. Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In Computer Aided Verification, Proc. 13th International Conference, volume 2102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 436-453. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
18. J.M. Crawford and A.B. Baker. Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. In AAAI, volume 2, pages 1092-1097, 1994.
19. V. Dalmau, P.G. Kolaitis, and M.Y. Vardi. Constraint satisfaction, bounded treewidth, and finite-variable logics. In CP'02, pages 310-326, 2002.
20. A. Darwiche. Decomposable negation normal form. J. ACM, 48(4):608-647, 2001.
21. M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem proving. Journal of the ACM, 5:394-397, 1962.
22. S. Davis and M. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of ACM, 7:201-215, 1960.
23. R. Dechter. Learning in graphical models, chapter Bucket elimination: a unifying framework for probabilistic inference, pages 75-104. 1999.
24. R. Dechter. Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, 2003.
25. R. Dechter and J. Pearl. Network-based heuristics for constraint-satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 34:1-38, 1987.
26. R. Dechter and I. Rish. Directional resolution: The Davis-Putnam procedure, revisited. In KR'94: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 134-145. 1994.
27. R.G. Downey and M.R. Fellows. Parametrized Complexity. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
28. E.C Freuder. Complexity of k-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. AAAI-90, pages 4-9, 1990.
29. D. Geist and H. Beer. Efficient model checking by automated ordering of transition relation partitions. In CAV 1994, pages 299-310, 1994.
30. E. Giunchiglia, M. Maratea, A. Tacchella, and D. Zambonin. Evaluating search heuristics and optimization techniques in propositional satisfiability. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2083, 2001.
31. E. Giunchiglia, M. Narizzano, and A. Tacchella. QuBE, a system for deciding quantified Boolean formulae satisfiability. In IJCAR'01, 2001.
32. E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov. BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT solver, 2002.
33. J. F. Groote. Hiding propositional constants in BDDs. FMSD, 8:91-96, 1996.
34. A. Gupta, Z. Yang, P. Ashar, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Partition-based decision heuristics for image computation using SAT and BDDs. In ICCAD, 2001.
35. A. Heuerding and S. Schwendimann. A benchmark method for the propositional modal logics K, KT, S4. Technical report, Universität Bern, Switzerland, 1996.
36. R. Hojati, S. C. Krishnan, and R. K. Brayton. Early quantification and partitioned transition relations, pages 12-19, 1996.
37. H. Kautz and B. Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. Eur. Conf. on AI, pages 359-379, 1992.
38. A.M.C.A. Koster, H.L. Bodlaender, and S.P.M. van Hoesel. Treewidth: Computational experiments. Technical report, 2001.
39. D. Le Berre, L. Simon, M. Narizzano, and A. Tacchella. QBF evaluation 2004. http://satlive.org/QBFEvaluation/2004/, 2004.
40. D. Le Berre, L. Simon, and A. Tacchella. Challenges in the qbf arena: the sat'03 evaluation of qbf solvers. In In Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2003), 2003.
41. R. Letz. Lemma and model caching in decision procedures for quantified Boolean formulas. In TABLEAUX 2002, pages 160-175, 2002.
42. S. Minato. Binary Decision Diagrams and Applications to VLSI CAD. Kluwer, 1996.
43. M. Narizzano. QBFLIB, the quantified Boolean formulas satisfiability library. http://www.qbflib.org.
44. A. Newell and H. A. Simon. The logic theory machine: A complex information processing system. IRE Trans. Inf. Theory, IT-2:61-79, 1956.
45. G. Pan, U. Sattler, and M.Y. Vardi. BDD-based decision procedures for K. In Proc. of CADE 2002, volume 2392 of LNAI, pages 16-30, 2002.
46. G. Pan and M.Y. Vardi. Optimizing a symbolic modal solver. In Proc. of CADE 2003, 2003.
47. G. Pan and M.Y. Vardi. Search vs. symbolic techniques in satisfiability solving. In SAT 2004, 2004.
48. R. Ranjan, A. Aziz, R. Brayton, B. Plessier, and C. Pixley. Efficient BDD algorithms for FSM synthesis and verification. In Proc. of IEEE/ACM Int. Workshop on Logic Synthesis, 1995.
49. J. Rintanen. Constructing conditional plans by a theorem-prover. J. of A. I. Res., 10:323-352, 1999.
50. A. San Miguel Aguirre and M. Y. Vardi. Random 3-SAT and BDDs: The plot thickens further. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 121-136, 2001.
51. A.P. Sistla and E.M. Clarke. The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. J. ACM, 32:733-749, 1985.
52. F. Somenzi. CUDD: CU decision diagram package, 1998.
53. L.J. Stockmeyer. The polynomial-time hierarchy. Theo. Comp. Sci., 3:1-22, 1977.
54. G. Sutcliffe and C. Suttner. Evaluating general purpose automated theorem proving systems. Artificial intelligence, 131:39-54, 2001.
55. R. E. Tarjan and M. Yannakakis. Simple linear-time algorithms to tests chordality of graphs, tests acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 13(3):566-579, 1984.
56. T. E. Uribe and M. E. Stickel. Ordered binary decision diagrams and the Davis-Putnam procedure. In 1st Int. Conf. on Constraints in Computational Logics, pages 34-49, 1994.
57. L. Zhang and S. Malik. The quest for efficient Boolean satisfiability solvers. In CAV 2002, pages 17-36, 2002.
58. L. Zhang and S. Malik. Towards symmetric treatment of conflicts and satisfaction in quantified Boolean satisfiability solver. In CP'02, 2002.