Results 1  10
of
80
Lazy Satisfiability Modulo Theories
 JOURNAL ON SATISFIABILITY, BOOLEAN MODELING AND COMPUTATION 3 (2007) 141Â224
, 2007
"... Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) is the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a firstorder formula with respect to some decidable firstorder theory T (SMT (T)). These problems are typically not handled adequately by standard automated theorem provers. SMT is being recognized as increasingl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 174 (47 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) is the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a firstorder formula with respect to some decidable firstorder theory T (SMT (T)). These problems are typically not handled adequately by standard automated theorem provers. SMT is being recognized as increasingly important due to its applications in many domains in different communities, in particular in formal verification. An amount of papers with novel and very efficient techniques for SMT has been published in the last years, and some very efficient SMT tools are now available. Typical SMT (T) problems require testing the satisfiability of formulas which are Boolean combinations of atomic propositions and atomic expressions in T, so that heavy Boolean reasoning must be efficiently combined with expressive theoryspecific reasoning. The dominating approach to SMT (T), called lazy approach, is based on the integration of a SAT solver and of a decision procedure able to handle sets of atomic constraints in T (Tsolver), handling respectively the Boolean and the theoryspecific components of reasoning. Unfortunately, neither the problem of building an efficient SMT solver, nor even that
The Quest for Efficient Boolean Satisfiability Solvers
, 2002
"... has seen much interest in not just the theoretical computer science community, but also in areas where practical solutions to this problem enable significant practical applications. Since the first development of the basic search based algorithm proposed by Davis, Putnam, Logemann and Loveland (DPLL ..."
Abstract

Cited by 140 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
has seen much interest in not just the theoretical computer science community, but also in areas where practical solutions to this problem enable significant practical applications. Since the first development of the basic search based algorithm proposed by Davis, Putnam, Logemann and Loveland (DPLL) about forty years ago, this area has seen active research effort with many interesting contributions that have culminated in stateoftheart SAT solvers today being able to handle problem instances with thousands, and in same cases even millions, of variables. In this paper we examine some of the main ideas along this passage that have led to our current capabilities. Given the depth of the literature in this field, it is impossible to do this in any comprehensive way; rather we focus on techniques with consistent demonstrated efficiency in available solvers. For the most part, we focus on techniques within the basic DPLL search framework, but also briefly describe other approaches and look at some possible future research directions. 1.
Testing Heuristics: We Have It All Wrong
 Journal of Heuristics
, 1995
"... The competitive nature of most algorithmic experimentation is a source of problems that are all too familiar to the research community. It is hard to make fair comparisons between algorithms and to assemble realistic test problems. Competitive testing tells us which algorithm is faster but not w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 135 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The competitive nature of most algorithmic experimentation is a source of problems that are all too familiar to the research community. It is hard to make fair comparisons between algorithms and to assemble realistic test problems. Competitive testing tells us which algorithm is faster but not why. Because it requires polished code, it consumes time and energy that could be spent doing more experiments. This paper argues that a more scientific approach of controlled experimentation, similar to that used in other empirical sciences, avoids or alleviates these problems. We have confused research and development; competitive testing is suited only for the latter. Most experimental studies of heuristic algorithms resemble track meets more than scientific endeavors. Typically an investigator has a bright idea for a new algorithm and wants to show that it works better, in some sense, than known algorithms. This requires computational tests, perhaps on a standard set of benchmark p...
The Constrainedness of Search
 In Proceedings of AAAI96
, 1999
"... We propose a definition of `constrainedness' that unifies two of the most common but informal uses of the term. These are that branching heuristics in search algorithms often try to make the most "constrained" choice, and that hard search problems tend to be "critically constrain ..."
Abstract

Cited by 119 (26 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a definition of `constrainedness' that unifies two of the most common but informal uses of the term. These are that branching heuristics in search algorithms often try to make the most "constrained" choice, and that hard search problems tend to be "critically constrained". Our definition of constrainedness generalizes a number of parameters used to study phase transition behaviour in a wide variety of problem domains. As well as predicting the location of phase transitions in solubility, constrainedness provides insight into why problems at phase transitions tend to be hard to solve. Such problems are on a constrainedness "knifeedge", and we must search deep into the problem before they look more or less soluble. Heuristics that try to get off this knifeedge as quickly as possible by, for example, minimizing the constrainedness are often very effective. We show that heuristics from a wide variety of problem domains can be seen as minimizing the constrainedness (or proxies ...
PSATO: a Distributed Propositional Prover and Its Application to Quasigroup Problems
 Journal of Symbolic Computation
, 1996
"... This paper shows a way of using such resources to solve hard problems. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 83 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper shows a way of using such resources to solve hard problems.
MAXPLAN: A New Approach to Probabilistic Planning
, 1998
"... Classical arti#cial intelligence planning techniques can operate in large domains but traditionally assume a deterministic universe. Operations research planning techniques can operate in probabilistic domains but break when the domains approach realistic sizes. maxplan is a new probabilistic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Classical arti#cial intelligence planning techniques can operate in large domains but traditionally assume a deterministic universe. Operations research planning techniques can operate in probabilistic domains but break when the domains approach realistic sizes. maxplan is a new probabilistic planning technique that aims at combining the best of these twoworlds. maxplan converts a planning instance into an EMajsat instance, and then draws on techniques from Boolean satis#ability and dynamic programming to solve the EMajsat instance. EMajsat is an NP PP complete problem that is essentially a probabilistic version of Sat. maxplan performs as much as an order of magnitude better on some standard stochastic test problems than buridana stateoftheart probabilistic plannerand scales better on one test problem than two algorithms based on dynamic programming. INTRODUCTION Classical arti#cial intelligence planning techniques can operate in large domains but, t...
New methods for 3SAT decision and worstcase analysis
 THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1999
"... We prove the worstcase upper bound 1:5045 n for the time complexity of 3SAT decision, where n is the number of variables in the input formula, introducing new methods for the analysis as well as new algorithmic techniques. We add new 2 and 3clauses, called "blocked clauses", generali ..."
Abstract

Cited by 74 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We prove the worstcase upper bound 1:5045 n for the time complexity of 3SAT decision, where n is the number of variables in the input formula, introducing new methods for the analysis as well as new algorithmic techniques. We add new 2 and 3clauses, called "blocked clauses", generalizing the extension rule of "Extended Resolution." Our methods for estimating the size of trees lead to a refined measure of formula complexity of 3clausesets and can be applied also to arbitrary trees. Keywords: 3SAT, worstcase upper bounds, analysis of algorithms, Extended Resolution, blocked clauses, generalized autarkness. 1 Introduction In this paper we study the exponential part of time complexity for 3SAT decision and prove the worstcase upper bound 1:5044:: n for n the number of variables in the input formula, using new algorithmic methods as well as new methods for the analysis. These methods also deepen the already existing approaches in a systematically manner. The following results...
EFFICIENT ALGORITHMS FOR CLAUSELEARNING SAT SOLVERS
, 2004
"... Boolean satisfiability (SAT) is NPcomplete. No known algorithm for SAT is of polynomial time complexity. Yet, many of the SAT instances generated as a means of solving realworld electronic design automation problems are simple enough, structurally, that modern solvers can decide them efficiently. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 71 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Boolean satisfiability (SAT) is NPcomplete. No known algorithm for SAT is of polynomial time complexity. Yet, many of the SAT instances generated as a means of solving realworld electronic design automation problems are simple enough, structurally, that modern solvers can decide them efficiently. Consequently, SAT solvers are widely used in industry for logic verification. The most robust solver algorithms are poorly understood and only vaguely described in the literature of the field. We refine these algorithms, and present them clearly. We introduce several new techniques for Boolean constraint propagation that substantially improve solver efficiency. We explain why literal count decision strategies succeed, and on that basis, we introduce a new decision strategy that outperforms the state of the art. The culmination of this work is the most powerful SAT solver publically available.
Stochastic Boolean Satisfiability
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 2000
"... . Satisfiability problems and probabilistic models are core topics of artificial intelligence and computer science. This paper looks at the rich intersection between these two areas, opening the door for the use of satisfiability approaches in probabilistic domains. The paper examines a generic stoc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 63 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. Satisfiability problems and probabilistic models are core topics of artificial intelligence and computer science. This paper looks at the rich intersection between these two areas, opening the door for the use of satisfiability approaches in probabilistic domains. The paper examines a generic stochastic satisfiability problem, SSat, which can function for probabilistic domains as Sat does for deterministic domains. It shows the connection between SSat and well studied problems in belief network inference and planning under uncertainty, and defines algorithms, both systematic and stochastic, for solving SSat instances. These algorithms are validated on random SSat formulae generated under the fixedclause model. In spite of the large complexity gap between SSat (PSPACE) and Sat (NP), the paper suggests that much of what we've learned about Sat transfers to the probabilistic domain. 1. Introduction There has been a recent focus in artificial intelligence (AI) on solving problems exh...
Resolution versus Search: Two Strategies for SAT
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 2000
"... The paper compares two popular strategies for solving propositional satisfiability, backtracking search and resolution, and analyzes the complexity of a directional resolution algorithm (DR) as a function of the "width" (w) of the problem's graph. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 56 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The paper compares two popular strategies for solving propositional satisfiability, backtracking search and resolution, and analyzes the complexity of a directional resolution algorithm (DR) as a function of the "width" (w) of the problem's graph.