Limitations of restricted branching in clause learning

Constraints

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 325-356

  Järvisalo, Matti ^a   Junttila, Tommi ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Backdoor sets; Branching heuristics; Clause learning; DPLL; Problem structure; Proof complexity; Propositional satisfiability

Indexed keywords

BACKDOOR SETS; BRANCHING HEURISTICS; CLAUSE LEARNING; DPLL; PROBLEM STRUCTURE; PROOF COMPLEXITY; PROPOSITIONAL SATISFIABILITY;

HEURISTIC METHODS; PACKET NETWORKS;

EDUCATION;

EID: 67651097585     PISSN: 13837133     EISSN: 15729354     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10601-008-9062-z     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Achlioptas, D., Beame, P., & Molloy, M. (2004). Exponential bounds for DPLL below the satisfiability threshold. In J. I. Munro (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA'04) (pp. 139-140). Philadelphia: SIAM.
2. D. Achlioptas P. Beame M. S. O. Molloy 2004 A sharp threshold in proof complexity yields lower bounds for satisfiability search Journal of Computer and System Sciences 68 2 238 268
3. M. Alekhnovich 2004 Mutilated chessboard problem is exponentially hard for resolution Theoretical Computer Science 310 1-3 513 525
4. M. Alekhnovich E. A. Hirsch D. Itsykson 2005 Exponential lower bounds for the running time of DPLL algorithms on satisfiable formulas Journal of Automated Reasoning 35 1-3 51 72 (Pubitemid 44619279)
5. Alekhnovich, M., Johannsen, J., Pitassi, T., & Urquhart, A. (2002). An exponential separation between regular and general resolution. In Proceedings on 34th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC'02) (pp. 448-456). New York: ACM. (Pubitemid 35009405)
6. P. Beame J. C. Culberson D. G. Mitchell C. Moore 2005 The resolution complexity of random graph k-colorability Discrete Applied Mathematics 153 1-3 25 47
7. P. Beame R. Impagliazzo A. Sabharwal 2007 The resolution complexity of independent sets and vertex covers in random graphs Computational Complexity 16 3 245 297
8. P. Beame R. M. Karp T. Pitassi M. E. Saks 2002 The efficiency of resolution and Davis-Putnam procedures SIAM Journal on Computing 31 4 1048 1075 (Pubitemid 35046787)
9. P. Beame H. A. Kautz A. Sabharwal 2004 Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22 319 351 (Pubitemid 41525889)
10. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E. M., Fujita, M., & Zhu, Y. (1999). Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In Proceedings of the 36th conference on design automation (DAC'99) (pp. 317-320). New York: ACM.
11. V. Chvátal E. Szemerédi 1988 Many hard examples for resolution Journal of the ACM 35 4 759 768
12. S. A. Cook 1976 A short proof of the pigeon hole principle using extended resolution SIGACT News 8 4 28 32
13. S. A. Cook R. A. Reckhow 1979 The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems Journal of Symbolic Logic 44 1 36 50
14. Copty, F., Fix, L., Fraer, R., Giunchiglia, E., Kamhi, G., Tacchella, A., et al. (2001). Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In G. Berry, H. Comon, & A. Finkel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV'01). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2102, pp. 436-453). New York: Springer. (Pubitemid 33312941)
15. Dantchev, S., & Riis, S. (2001). "Planar" tautologies hard for resolution. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS'01) (pp. 220-229). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society. (Pubitemid 33068382)
16. M. Davis G. Logemann D. Loveland 1962 A machine program for theorem proving Communications of the ACM 5 7 394 397
17. M. Davis H. Putnam 1960 A computing procedure for quantification theory Journal of the ACM 7 3 201 215
18. Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2004). An extensible SAT-solver. In E. Giunchiglia & A. Tacchella (Eds.), Revised selected papers of the 6th international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT'03). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2919, pp. 502-518). New York: Springer.
19. Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M., & Tacchella, A. (2002). Dependent and independent variables in propositional satisfiability. In S. Flesca, S. Greco, N. Leone, & G. Ianni (Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on logics in artificial intelligence JELIA'02. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 2424, pp. 296-307). New York: Springer.
20. Giunchiglia, E., Massarotto, A., & Sebastiani, R. (1998). Act, and the rest will follow: Exploiting determinism in planning as satisfiability. In B. B. C. Rich, J. Mostow, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI'98) (pp. 948-953). Menlo Park: AAAI.
21. A. Goerdt 1993 Regular resolution versus unrestricted resolution SIAM Journal on Computing 22 4 661 683 (Pubitemid 23677160)
22. Goldberg, E., & Novikov, Y. (2002). Berkmin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In Proceedings of the 2002 design, automation and test in Europe conference (DATE'02) (pp. 142-149). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.
23. Gomes, C. P., Selman, B., & Kautz, H. A. (1998). Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In B. B. C. Rich, J. Mostow, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI'98) (pp. 431-437). Menlo Park: AAAI.
24. A. Haken 1985 The intractability of resolution Theoretical Computer Science 39 2-3 297 308
25. Huang, J. (2007). The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI'07) (pp. 2318-2323). Menlo Park: AAAI.
26. Järvisalo, M. (2007). Equivalence checking multiplier designs. SAT Competition 2007 benchmark description. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/mjj/benchmarks/.
27. Järvisalo, M., & Junttila, T. (2007). Limitations of restricted branching in clause learning. In C. Bessiere (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP 2007). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4741, pp. 348-363). New York: Springer.
28. Järvisalo, M., & Junttila, T. (2008). On the power of top-down branching heuristics. In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-08) (pp. 304-309). Menlo Park: AAAI.
29. M. Järvisalo T. Junttila I. Niemelä 2005 Unrestricted vs restricted cut in a tableau method for Boolean circuits Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44 4 373 399 (Pubitemid 41361150)
30. M. Järvisalo I. Niemelä 2008 The effect of structural branching on the efficiency of clause learning SAT solving: An experimental study Journal of Algorithms 63 1-3 90 113
31. Junttila, T. A., & Niemelä, I. (2000). Towards an efficient tableau method for boolean circuit satisfiability checking. In J. W. Lloyd, V. Dahl, U. Furbach, M. Kerber, K. K. Lau, C. Palamidessi, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational logic (CL'00). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1861, pp. 553-567). New York: Springer.
32. T. Jussila K. Heljanko I. Niemelä 2005 BMC via on-the-fly determinization International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 7 2 89 101 (Pubitemid 41349069)
33. Kautz, H. A., & Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In B. Neumann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI'92) (pp. 359-363). New York: Wiley.
34. Krajíček, J. (1995). Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory. In Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications (Vol. 60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Kuehlmann, A., Ganai, M. K., & Paruthi, V. (2001). Circuit-based Boolean reasoning. In Proceedings of the 38th design automation conference (DAC'01) (pp. 232-237). New York: ACM.
36. Latvala, T., Biere, A., Heljanko, K., & Junttila, T. A. (2004). Simple bounded LTL model checking. In A. J. Hu & A. K. Martin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD'04). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3312, pp. 186-200). New York: Springer. (Pubitemid 39749976)
37. Li, C. M., & Anbulagan (1997). Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In M. Pollack (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI'97) (pp. 366-371). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
38. J. Marques-Silva L. Guerra e Silva 2003 Solving satisfiability in combinational circuits IEEE Design & Test of Computers 20 4 16 21
39. J. P. Marques-Silva K. A. Sakallah 1999 GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability IEEE Transactions on Computers 48 5 506 521
40. Moskewicz, M. W., Madigan, C. F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the 38th design automation conference (DAC'01) (pp. 530-535). New York: ACM.
41. S. I. Nikolenko 2005 Hard satisfiable instances for DPLL-type algorithms Journal of Mathematical Sciences 126 3 1205 1209 (Pubitemid 40526276)
42. Papadimitriou, C. H. (1995). Computational complexity. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
43. Pyhälä, T. (2004). Factoring benchmarks for SAT-solvers. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/genfacbm/.
44. J. A. Robinson 1965 A machine oriented logic based on the resolution principle Journal of the ACM 12 1 23 41
45. Strichman, O. (2000). Tuning SAT checkers for bounded model checking. In E. A. Emerson & A. P. Sistla (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV'00). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1855, pp. 480-494). New York: Springer.
46. Thiffault, C., Bacchus, F., & Walsh, T. (2004). Solving non-clausal formulas with DPLL search. In M. Wallace (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP'04). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3258, pp. 663-678). New York: Springer.
47. Tseitin, G. S. (1983). On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In A. Slisenko (Ed.), Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, part II. Seminars in mathematics, V.A. Steklov mathematical institute, Leningrad (Vol. 8, pp. 115-125). Consultants Bureau (1969). English translation appears in J. Siekmann and G. Wrightson, editors, Automation of Reasoning 2: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1967-1970 pages 466-483. New York: Springer.
48. A. Urquhart 1987 Hard examples for resolution Journal of the ACM 34 1 209 219 (Pubitemid 17601588)
49. A. Urquhart 1995 The complexity of propositional proofs Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 1 4 425 467
50. Velev, M. N., & Bryant, R. E. (1999). Superscalar processor verification using efficient reductions of the logic of equality with uninterpreted functions to propositional logic. In L. Pierre & T. Kropf (Eds.), Correct hardware design and verification methods, proceedings of the 10th IFIP WG 10.5 advanced research working conference (CHARME'99). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1703, pp. 37-53). New York: Springer.
51. Williams, R., Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2003). Backdoors to typical case complexity. In G. Gottlob & T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI'03) (pp. 1173-1178). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
52. Zhang, L., Madigan, C. F., Moskewicz, M. W., & Malik, S. (2001). Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In Proceedings of the 2001 international conference on computer-aided design (ICCAD'01) (pp. 279-285). New York: ACM. (Pubitemid 33148971)