ZRes: The old davis-putnam procedure meets ZBDD

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science)

Volumn 1831, Issue , 2000, Pages 449-454

  Chatalic, Philippe ^a   Simon, Laurent ^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

ALGORITHMS; THEOREM PROVING;

SAT INSTANCES;

AUTOMATION;

EID: 84882291036     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/10721959_35     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. R.E. Bryant. Graph -based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Comp., 35 (8) : 677-691, 1986.
2. Ph. Chatalic and L. Simon. Davis and putnam 40 years later: a first experimenta-Tion. Technical Report 1237, LRI, Orsay, France, 2000. Submitted to the Journal of Automated Reasoning.
3. M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Jour-nal of the ACM, pages 201-215, 1960.
4. Johan de Kleer. An improved incremental algorithm for generating prime impli-cates. In AAAI'92, pages 780-785, 1992.
5. R. Dechter and I. Rish. Directional resolution: The Davis-Putnam procedure, revisited. In Proceedings of KR-94, pages 134-145, 1994.
6. The DIMACS challenge benchmarks. ftp://ftp.rutgers.dimacs.edu/challenges/sat.
7. R. Drechsler and B. Becker. Binary Decision Diagram: Theory and Implementa-Tion. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1998.
8. Olivier Dubois. Can a very simple algorithm be eficient for SAT? ftp://ftp.dimacs.rutgers.edu/pub/challenges/sat/contributed/dubois.
9. Zvi Galil. On the complexity of regular resolution and the Davis-Putnam proce-dure. Theorical Computer Science, 4: 23-46, 1977.
10. A. Haken. The intractability of resolution. Theorical Computer Science, 39: 297-308, 1985.
11. G. Logeman M. Davis and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, pages 394-397, 1962.
12. S. Minato. Zero-suppressed bdds for set manipulation in combinatorial problems. In 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 1993.
13. F. Somenzy. Cudd release 2.3.0. http://bessie.colorado.edu/fabio.
14. A. Urquhart. Hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM, 34: 209-219, 1987.
15. Hantao Zhang. SATO: An eficient propositional prover. In CADE-14, LNCS 1249, pages 272-275, 1997.