SatEx: A web-based framework for SAT experimentation

Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics

Volumn 9, Issue , 2001, Pages 129-149

  Simon, Laurent ^a   Chatalic, Philippe ^a  

^a UFR 919 Laboratoire d'Informatique Pour la Mécanique et les Sciences de l'Ingénieur   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247160109     PISSN: 15710653     EISSN: 15710653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1571-0653(04)00318-X     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. R.J. Bayardo and R. Schrag. Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world sat instances. In 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 203-208, 1997.
2. Daniel Le Berre. The Sat Live! web site, http://www.satlive.org.
3. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. In Proceedings of Tools and Algorithms for the Analysis and Construction of Systems (TACAS'99), number 1579 in LNCS, 1999. Benchmarks available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/∼modelcheck/bmc.
4. Ph. Chatalic and L. Simon. Davis and Putnam 40 years later: a first experimentation. Technical Report 1237, LRI, Orsay, France, 2000.
5. Ph. Chatalic and L. Simon. Multi-resolution on compressed sets of clauses. In 12th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI-2000, pages 2-10, 2000.
6. Ph. Chatalic and L. Simon. Zres: the old DP meets ZBDDs. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of Automated Deduction (CADE), pages 449-454, 2000.
7. James Crawford. International competition and symposium on satisfiability testing. March 1996.
8. J.M. Crawford and L.D. Auton. Experimental results on the crossover point in random 3sat. Artificial Intelligence, 81, 1996.
9. M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM, pages 201-215, 1960.
10. R. Dechter and I. Rish. Resolution versus search: Two strategies for sat. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24(1/2):225-275, February 2000.
11. The DIMACS challenge benchmarks. from the site ftp://ftp.rutgers.dimacs. edu/challenges/sat.
12. O. Dubois, P. André, Y. Boufkhad, and J. Carlier. Sat versus unsat. In Dimacs challenge on Satisfiability Testing, 1993.
13. Jon William Freeman. Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.
14. Ian P. Gent, Holger H. Hoos, Patrick Prosser, and Toby Walsh. Morphing: Combining structure and randomness. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'99), pages 654-660, Orlando, Florida, 1999.
15. Jan Friso Groote and Joost P. Warners. The propositional formula checker heerhugo. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24(1/2):101-125.
16. J. N. Hooker. Needed: An empirical science of algorithms. Operations Research, 42:201-212, 1994.
17. Holger H. Hoos and Thomas Stützle. Local search algorithms for sat: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24:421-481, 2000.
18. Holger H. Hoos and Thomas Stützle. SAT20000: Highlights of Satisfiability Research in the year 2000, chapter SATLIB: An Online Resource for Research on SAT, pages 283-292. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Kluwer Academic, 2000. (web site: http://www.satlib.org).
19. Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Pushing the envelope : Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'96), pages 1194-1201, 1996.
20. Daniel Le Berre. Exploiting the real power of unit propagation lookahead. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT2001), Boston University, Massachusetts, USA, June 14th-15th 2001. to appear.
21. Chu-Min Li. A constrained based approach to narrow search trees for satisfiability. Information processing letters, 71:75-80, 1999.
22. Chu-Min Li. Integrating equivalency reasoning into davis-putnam procedure. In the proceedings of AAAI-2000, pages 291-296, 2000.
23. Chu-Min Li and Anbulagan. Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of IJCAI'97, pages 366-371, 1997.
24. G. Logeman M. Davis and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, pages 394-397, 1962.
25. João P. Marques-Silva and Karem A. Sakallah. Grasp: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48(5):506-521, 1999.
26. David G. Mitchell and Hector J. Levesque. Some pitfalls for experimenters with random sat. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2):111-125, March 1996.
27. Matthew W. Moskewicz, Conor F. Madigan, Ying Zhao, Lintao Zhang, and Sharad Malik. Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC'01), June 2001.
28. Allen van Gelder and Yumi Tsuji. Instances from circuit fault analysis. Available in [11] repository.
29. Allen VanGelder and Fumiaki Kamiya. The partial rehabilitation of propositional resolution. Technical Report UCSC-CRL-96-04, 1996.
30. Miroslav N. Velev. Formal verification of superscalar and VLIW processors benchmarks (FVP-UNSAT. 1.0). Available at http://www.ece.cmu.edu/∼mvelev.
31. Available for downloading at http://sat.inesc.pt/benchmarks/cnf/uni- paderborn.
32. Hantao Zhang. SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In CADE-14, LNCS 1249, pages 272-275, 1997.