Boolean equi-propagation for concise and efficient SAT encodings of combinatorial problems

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Volumn 46, Issue , 2013, Pages 303-341

  Metodi, Amit ^a   Codish, Michael ^a   Stuckey, Peter J ^b  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SIGNAL ENCODING;

COMBINATORIAL PROBLEM; CONSTRAINT MODEL; ENCODINGS; FINITE DOMAIN CONSTRAINTS; KEY FACTORS; PARTIAL EVALUATION; SAT-BASED; SAT-SOLVING;

ENCODING (SYMBOLS);

EID: 84875553422     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10769757     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1613/jair.3809     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ansótegui, C., del Val, A., Dotú, I., Fernández, C., & Manyà, F. (2004). Modeling choices in quasigroup completion: SAT vs. CSP. In McGuinness, D. L., & Ferguson, G. (Eds.), AAAI, pp. 137-142, San Jose, California, USA. AAAI Press / The MIT Press.
2. Asín, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., & Rodríguez-Carbonell, E. (2011). Cardinality networks: a theoretical and empirical study. Constraints, 16(2), 195-221.
3. Bagnara, R., & Schachte, P. (1998). Factorizing equivalent variable pairs in ROBDD-based implementations of Pos. In Haeberer, A. M. (Ed.), Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, 7th International Conference, AMAST '98, Amazonia, Brasil, January 4-8, 1999, Proceedings, Vol. 1548 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 471-485.
4. Bailleux, O., & Boufkhad, Y. (2003). Efficient CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In Rossi, F. (Ed.), CP, Vol. 2833 of LNCS, pp. 108-122, Kinsale, Ireland. Springer.
5. Barrett, C., Stump, A., & Tinelli, C. (2010). The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB). www.SMT-LIB.org.
6. Batcher, K. E. (1968). Sorting networks and their applications. In AFIPS Spring Joint Computing Conference, Vol. 32 of AFIPS Conference Proceedings, pp. 307-314, Atlantic City, NJ, USA. Thomson Book Company, Washington D.C.
7. Bessiere, C., Katsirelos, G., Narodytska, N., & Walsh, T. (2009). Circuit complexity and decompositions of global constraints. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2009, pp. 412-418.
8. Cadoli, M., & Schaerf, A. (2005). Compiling problem specifications into SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 162 (1-2), 89-120.
9. Codish, M., Fekete, Y., Fuhs, C., & Schneider-Kamp, P. (2011). Optimal base encodings for pseudo-Boolean constraints. In Abdulla, P. A., & Leino, K. R. M. (Eds.), TACAS, Vol. 6605 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 189-204. Springer.
10. Codish, M., Lagoon, V., & Stuckey, P. J. (2008). Logic programming with satisfiability. TPLP, 8(1), 121-128.
11. Codish, M., & Zazon-Ivry, M. (2010). Pairwise cardinality networks. In Clarke, E. M., & Voronkov, A. (Eds.), LPAR (Dakar), Vol. 6355 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 154-172. Springer.
12. Coudert, O., & Madre, J. C. (1990). A unified framework for the formal verification of sequential circuits. In ICCAD, pp. 126-129.
13. Crawford, J. M., & Baker, A. B. (1994). Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. In Hayes-Roth, B., & Korf, R. E. (Eds.), AAAI, Vol. 2, pp. 1092-1097, Seattle, WA, USA. AAAI Press / The MIT Press.
14. Eén, N., & Biere, A. (2005). Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In Bacchus, F., & Walsh, T. (Eds.), SAT, Vol. 3569 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 61-75. Springer.
15. Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2003). An extensible SAT-solver. In Giunchiglia, E., & Tacchella, A. (Eds.), SAT, Vol. 2919 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 502-518. Springer.
16. Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2006). Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. JSAT, 2(1-4), 1-26.
17. Frisch, A. M., Jefferson, C., & Miguel, I. (2004). Symmetry breaking as a prelude to implied constraints: A constraint modeling pattern. In Proc. 16th Euro. Conf. on AI, 171175, pp. 171-175. Press.
18. Frutos, A. G., Liu, Q., Thiel, A. J., Sanner, A. M. W., Condon, A. E., Smith, L. M., & Corn, R. M. (1997). Demonstration of a word design strategy for DNA computing on surfaces. Journal of Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23), 4748-4757.
19. Gallian, J. A. (2011). A dynamic survey of graph labeling. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 18.
20. Gavanelli, M. (2007). The log-support encoding of CSP into SAT. In Bessiere, C. (Ed.), CP, Vol. 4741 of LNCS, pp. 815-822, Providence, RI, USA. Springer.
21. Gelder, A. V. (2005). Toward leaner binary-clause reasoning in a satisfiability solver. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 43(1), 239-253.
22. Gent, I. P., Jefferson, C., & Miguel, I. (2006). Minion: A fast scalable constraint solver. In Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., & Traverso, P. (Eds.), ECAI, Vol. 141 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 98-102. IOS Press.
23. Gent, I. P., & Nightingale, P. (2004). A new encoding of alldifferent into SAT. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Modeling and Reformulating Constraint Satisfaction Problems, http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/ frisch/Reformulation/04/proceedings.pdf.
24. Gomes, C. P., Selman, B., & Crato, N. (1997). Heavy-tailed distributions in combinatorial search. In Smolka, G. (Ed.), CP, Vol. 1330 of LNCS, pp. 121-135. Springer.
25. Heule, M., Järvisalo, M., & Biere, A. (2011). Efficient CNF simplification based on binary implication graphs. In Sakallah, K. A., & Simon, L. (Eds.), SAT, Vol. 6695 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 201-215. Springer.
26. Huang, J. (2008). Universal Booleanization of constraint models. In CP2008, Vol. 5202 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 144-158.
27. Jäger, G. (2010). An effective SAT encoding for magic labeling. In Faigle, U., Schrader, R., & Herrmann, D. (Eds.), CTW, pp. 97-100.
28. Li, C. (2003). Equivalent literal propagation in the DLL procedure. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 130(2), 251-276.
29. MacDougall, J., Miller, M., Slamin, M., & Wallis, W. (2002). Vertex-magic total labelings of graphs. Utilitas Mathematica, 61, 3-21.
30. Mancini, T., Micaletto, D., Patrizi, F., & Cadoli, M. (2008). Evaluating ASP and commercial solvers on the CSPLib. Constraints, 13(4), 407-436.
31. Manthey, N. (2012). Coprocessor 2.0 - a flexible CNF simplifier - (tool presentation). In Cimatti, A., & Sebastiani, R. (Eds.), SAT, Vol. 7317 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 436-441. Springer.
32. Metodi, A. (2012). BEE. http://amit.metodi.me/research/bee/.
33. Metodi, A., & Codish, M. (2012). Compiling finite domain constraints to SAT with BEE. TPLP, 12(4-5), 465-483.
34. Metodi, A., Codish, M., Lagoon, V., & Stuckey, P. J. (2011). Boolean equi-propagation for optimized SAT encoding. In Lee, J. H.-M. (Ed.), CP, Vol. 6876 of LNCS, pp. 621-636. Springer.
35. Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P. J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G. J., & Tack, G. (2007). Minizinc: Towards a standard CP modeling language. In Bessiere, C. (Ed.), CP2007, Vol. 4741 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 529-543, Providence, RI, USA. Springer-Verlag.
36. Somenzi, F. (2009). CUDD: Colorado University Decision Diagram package. (Online, accessed 13 April 2011). http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~fabio/CUDD/.
37. Soos, M. (2010). CryptoMiniSAT, v2.5.1. http://www.msoos.org/ cryptominisat2.
38. Tamura, N., Taga, A., Kitagawa, S., & Banbara, M. (2009). Compiling finite linear CSP into SAT. Constraints, 14(2), 254-272.
39. Tarjan, R. (1975). Efficiency of a good but not linear set union algorithm. JACM, 22(2), 215-225.
40. van Hentenryck, P. (1999). The OPL Optimization Programming Language. MIT Press.
41. van Hoeve, W. J. (2001). The alldifferent constraint: A survey. CoRR: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.PL/0105015.