Understanding the power of clause learning

IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 1194-1201

  Beanie, Paul ^a   Kautz, Henry ^a   Sabharwal, Ashish ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLAUSE LEARNING; EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION; LEARNING SCHEMES; NON-REDUNDANT; PROOF SYSTEM; REAL-WORLD PROBLEM; SATISFIABILITY SOLVERS; ULTIMATE STRENGTH;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84880820271     PISSN: 10450823     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. D. Achlioptas, P. Beame, and M. Molloy. A sharp threshold in proof complexity. In 33rd STOC, 337-346, 2001.
2. M. Alekhnovich, J. Johannsen, T. Pitassi, and A. Urquhart. An exponential separation between regular and general resolution. In 34th STOC\ 448 456, 2002.
3. L. Baptista and J. P. M. Silva. Using randomization and learning to solve hard real-world instances of satisfiability. In Prin. and Prac. of Const. Prog., 489-494, 2000.
4. R. J. Bayardo Jr. and R. C. Schrag. Using CST look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In Nth AAA1, 203-208, 1997.
5. E. Ben-Sasson and A. Wigderson. Short proofs are narrow - resolution made simple. In 31st STOQ 517-526, 1999.
6. E. Ben-Sasson, R. Impagliazzo, and A. Wigderson. Near-optimal separation of treelike and general resolution. Tech. Rep. TR00-005, Elec. Colloq. in Comput. Compl., http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/eccc/, 2000.
7. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, M. Fujita, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In 36th DAC, 317-320, 1999.
8. M. L. Bonet and N. Galesi. A study of proof search algorithms for resolution and polynomial calculus. In 40th FOCS, 422-432, 1999.
9. M. L. Bonet, J. L. Esteban, N. Galesi, and J. Johansen, On the relative complexity of resolution refinements and cutting planes proof systems, SIAM J. Cornput., 30 (2000), 1462-1484. (Pubitemid 33099785)
10. S. A. Cook and R. A. Reckhow, The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, J. Symb. Logic, 44 (1977), 36-50.
11. M. Davis and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory, CACM, 7 (1960), 201-215.
12. M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland, A machine program for theorem proving, CACM, 5 (1962), 394-397.
13. R. Davis, Diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behavior, J. AI, 24 (1984), 347-410.
14. J. de Klecr and B. C. Williams, Diagnosing multiple faults, J. AI, 32 (1987), 97-130.
15. R. Genesereth, The use of design descriptions in automated diagnosis, J. AI, 24 (1984), 411-436.
16. C. P. Gomes, B. Selman, and H. Kautz. Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In 15th AAAI 431-437, 1998.
17. C. P. Gomes, B. Selman, K. McAloon, and C. Tretkoff. Randomization in backtrack search: Exploiting heavy-tailed profiles for solving hard scheduling problems. In 4th Int. Conf. Art. Intel. Planning Syst., 1998.
18. A. Kautz and B. Selman. Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In 13th AAAI, 1194-1201, 1996.
19. H. Konuk and T. Larrabee. Explorations of sequential ATPG using boolean satisfiability. In 11th VLSI Test Symposium, 85-90, 1993.
20. B. Krishnamurthy, Short proofs for tricky formulas, Acta Inf., 22 (1985), 253-274.
21. C. M. Li and Anbulagan. Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In UCAI(I), 366-371, 1997.
22. J. P. Marques-Silva and K. A. Sakallah. Grasp - a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In ICCAD, 220-227, 1996.
23. J. Marques-Silva. An overview of backtrack search satisfiability algorithms. In 5th Symp. on AI and Math., 1998.
24. M. W. Moskewicz, C. F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In 38th DAC, 530-535, 2001.
25. A. Sabharwal, P. Beame, and H. Kautz. Using problem structure for efficient clause learning. To appear in SAT, 2003.
26. R. Stallman and G. J. Sussman, Forward reasoning and dependency-directed backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis, J. AI, 9 (1977), 135-196.
27. M. Velev and R. Bryant. Effective use of boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and vliw microprocessors. In 38th DAC, 226-231, 2001.
28. H. Zhang and J. Hsiang. Solving open quasigroup problems by propositional reasoning. In Proceedings of the International Computer Symp., 1994.
29. L. Zhang, C. F. Madigan, M. H. Moskewicz, and S. Malik. Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In ICCAD, 279-285, 2001.
30. H. Zhang. SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In Int. Conf on Auto. Deduc, LNAI, vol. 1249,272-275, 1997.