Random 3-SAT and BDDs: The plot thickens further

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2239, Issue , 2001, Pages 121-136

  Aguirre, Alfonso San Miguel ^a   Vardi, Moshe Y ^b  

^a INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO AUTÓNOMO DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b Rice University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; CONSTRAINT THEORY; HEURISTIC ALGORITHMS;

3-SAT PROBLEMS; COMPUTATIONAL HARDNESS; CONSTRUCTION STRATEGIES; EXISTENTIAL QUANTIFICATIONS; EXPONENTIAL RUNNING TIME; HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION; ORDERED BINARY DECISION DIAGRAMS; SATISFIABILITY;

BINARY DECISION DIAGRAMS;

EID: 84947944357     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45578-7_9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. D. Achlioptas. Setting two variables at a time yields a new lower bound for random 3-SAT. In Proc. 32th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 28–37, 2000.
2. J. Balcazar. Self-reducibility. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 41(3):367–388, 1990.
3. P. Beame, R. M. Karp, T. Pitassi, and M. E. Saks. On the complexity of unsatisfiability proofs for random k-CNF formulas. In Proc. 30th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 561–571, 1998.
4. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, M. Fujita, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In Proc. 36th Conf. on Design Automation, pages 317–320, 1999.
5. M. Block, C. Gropl, H. Preuß, H. L. Proomel, and A. Srivastav. Efficient ordering of state variables and transition relation partitions in symbolic model checking. Technical report, Institute of Informatics, Humboldt University of Berlin, 1997.
6. F. Bouquet. Gestion de la dynamicite et enumeration d’implicants premiers: une approche fondee sur les Diagrammes de Decision Binaire. PhD thesis, Universite de Provence, France, 1999.
7. R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 35(8):677–691, 1986.
8. J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke, and D. E. Long. Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In Proc. IFIP TC10/WG 10.5 Int’l Conf. on Very Large Scale Integration, Edinburgh, Scotland (VLSI’91), pages 49–58, 1991.
9. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and L.J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Information and Computation, 98(2):142–170, June 1992.
10. P. Chatalic and L. Simon. The old Davis-Putnam procedure meets ZBDDs. In D. McAllester, editor, 17th Int’l Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE’17), volume 1831 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 449–454, 2000.
11. P. Cheeseman, B. Kanefsky, and W. M. Taylor. Where the really hard problems are. In Proc. 12th Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’91), pages 331–337, 1991.
12. V. Chvatal and E. Szemeredi. Many hard examples for resolution. J. of the ACM, 35(4):759–768, 1988.
13. C. Coarfa, D.D. Demopolous, A. San Miguel Aguirre, D. Subramanian, and M.Y. Vardi. Random 3-SAT: The plot thickens. In R. Dechter, editor, Proc. Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’2000), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1894, pages 143–159, 2000.
14. S. Cocco and R. Monasson. Trajectories in phase diagrams, growth processes and computational complexity: how search algorithms solve the 3-Satisfiability problem. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:1654–1657, 2001.
15. J. M. Crawford and L. D. Auton. Experimental results on the crossover point in random 3-SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2):31–57, 1996.
16. M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem proving. Comm. of the ACM, 5:394–397, 1962
17. O. Dubois, Y. Boufkhad, and J. Mandler. Typical random 3-SAT formulae and the satisfiability threshold. In Proc. 11th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, pages 126–127, 2000.
18. E. Friedgut. Necessary and sufficient conditions for sharp threshold of graph properties and the k-SAT problem. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 12:1017–1054, 1999.
19. D. Geist and H. Beer. Efficient model checking by automated ordering of transition relation partitions. In Proc. 6th Int’l Conf. on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’94), pages 299–310, 1994.
20. I. P. Gent and T. Walsh. Easy problems are sometimes hard. Artificial Intelligence, 70(1-2):335–345, 1994.
21. J. F. Groote. Hiding propositional constants in BDDs. Formal Methods in System Design, 8:91–96, 1996.
22. J.F. Groote and H. Zantema. Resolution and binary decision diagrams cannot simulate each other polynomially. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, 2000. Technical Report UU-CS-2000-14.
23. T. Hogg and C. P. Williams. The hardest constraint problems: A double phase transition. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1-2):359–377, 1994.
24. R. Hojati, S. C. Krishnan, and R. K. Brayton. Early quantification and partitioned transition relations. In Proc. 1996 Int’l Conf. on Computer Design, pages 12–19, 1996.
25. S. Jha, Y. Lu, M. Minea, and E.M. Clarke. Equivalence checking using abstract BDDs. In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Computer Design (ICCD’97), pages 332–337, 1997.
26. T. Larrabee and Y. Tsuji. Evidence for a satisfiability threshold for random 3CNF formulas. In Working Notes of AAAI 1993 Spring Symposium: AI and NP-Hard Problems, pages 112–118, 1993.
27. J. P. Marques Silva and K. A. Sakallah. GRASP–A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 48(5):506–521, 1999.
28. D. G. Mitchell and H. J. Levesque. Some pitfalls for experimenters with random SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2):111–125, 1996.
29. R. K. Ranjan, A. A. Aziz, R. K. Brayton, B. Plessier, and C. Pixley. Efficient formal design verification: Data structure + algorithms. Technical report, University of California at Berkeley, 1994. Tech. Rep. UCB/ERL M94/100.
30. B. Selman and S. Kirkpatrick. Critical behavior in the computational cost of satisfiability testing. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2):273–295, 1996.
31. B. Selman, D. G. Mitchell, and H. J. Levesque. Generating hard satisfiability problems. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2):17–29, 1996.
32. F. Somenzi. CUDD: CU Decision Diagram package. release 2.3.0., 1998. Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering. University of Colorado at Boulder.
33. R. E. Tarjan and M. Yannakakis. Simple linear-time algorithms to tests chordiality of graphs, tests acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM J. on Computing, 13(3):566–579, 1984.
34. The VIS Group. VIS: A system for verification and synthesis. In Proc. 8th Int’l Conf. on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’96), pages 428–432, 1996. LNCS 1102. Ed. by R. Alur and T. Henziger.
35. T. E. Uribe and M. E. Stickel. Ordered binary decision diagrams and the Davis-Putnam procedure. In First Int’l Conf. on Constraints in Computational Logics, volume 845 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 34–49, Munich, September 1994. Springer-Verlag.