There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

Boolean satisfiability is probably the most studied of the combinatorial optimization/search problems. Significant effort has been devoted to trying to provide practical solutions to this problem for problem instances encountered in a range of applications in electronic design automation (EDA), as well as in artificial intelligence (AI). This study has culminated in the development of several SAT packages, both proprietary and in the public domain (e.g. GRASP, SATO) which find significant use in both research and industry. Most existing complete solvers are variants of the Davis-Putnam (DP) search algorithm. In this paper we describe the development of a new complete solver, Chaff which achieves significant performance gains through careful engineering of all aspects of the search-especially a particularly efficient implementation of Boolean constraint propagation (BCP) and a novel low overhead decision strategy. Chaff has been able to obtain one to two orders of magnitude performance improvement on difficult SAT benchmarks in comparison with other solvers (DP or otherwise), including GRASP and SATO.

/pdf/chaff-engineering-an-efficient-sat-solver-2ima1ekzuu.pdf

Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver

Constraint programming is a powerful paradigm for solving combinatorial search problems that draws on a wide range of techniques from artificial intelligence, computer science, databases, programming languages, and operations research. Constraint programming is currently applied with success to many domains, such as scheduling, planning, vehicle routing, configuration, networks, and bioinformatics.

The aim of this handbook is to capture the full breadth and depth of the constraint programming field and to be encyclopedic in its scope and coverage. While there are several excellent books on constraint programming, such books necessarily focus on the main notions and techniques and cannot cover also extensions, applications, and languages. The handbook gives a reasonably complete coverage of all these lines of work, based on constraint programming, so that a reader can have a rather precise idea of the whole field and its potential. Of course each line of work is dealt with in a survey-like style, where some details may be neglected in favor of coverage. However, the extensive bibliography of each chapter will help the interested readers to find suitable sources for the missing details. Each chapter of the handbook is intended to be a self-contained survey of a topic, and is written by one or more authors who are leading researchers in the area.

The intended audience of the handbook is researchers, graduate students, higher-year undergraduates and practitioners who wish to learn about the state-of-the-art in constraint programming. No prior knowledge about the field is necessary to be able to read the chapters and gather useful knowledge. Researchers from other fields should find in this handbook an effective way to learn about constraint programming and to possibly use some of the constraint programming concepts and techniques in their work, thus providing a means for a fruitful cross-fertilization among different research areas.

The handbook is organized in two parts. The first part covers the basic foundations of constraint programming, including the history, the notion of constraint propagation, basic search methods, global constraints, tractability and computational complexity, and important issues in modeling a problem as a constraint problem. The second part covers constraint languages and solver, several useful extensions to the basic framework (such as interval constraints, structured domains, and distributed CSPs), and successful application areas for constraint programming.

- Covers the whole field of constraint programming
- Survey-style chapters
- Five chapters on applications

Table of Contents

Foreword (Ugo Montanari) 
Part I : Foundations
Chapter 1. Introduction (Francesca Rossi, Peter van Beek, Toby Walsh) 
Chapter 2. Constraint Satisfaction: An Emerging Paradigm (Eugene C. Freuder, Alan K. Mackworth) 
Chapter 3. Constraint Propagation (Christian Bessiere) 
Chapter 4. Backtracking Search Algorithms (Peter van Beek) 
Chapter 5. Local Search Methods (Holger H. Hoos, Edward Tsang) 
Chapter 6. Global Constraints (Willem-Jan van Hoeve, Irit Katriel)
Chapter 7. Tractable Structures for CSPs (Rina Dechter)
Chapter 8. The Complexity of Constraint Languages
(David Cohen, Peter Jeavons) 
Chapter 9. Soft Constraints (Pedro Meseguer, Francesca Rossi, Thomas Schiex) 
Chapter 10. Symmetry in Constraint Programming
(Ian P. Gent, Karen E. Petrie, Jean-Francois Puget)
Chapter 11. Modelling (Barbara M. Smith) 
Part II : Extensions, Languages, and Applications

Chapter 12. Constraint Logic Programming (Kim Marriott, Peter J. Stuckey, Mark Wallace) 
Chapter 13. Constraints in Procedural and Concurrent Languages (Thom Fruehwirth, Laurent Michel, Christian Schulte)
Chapter 14. Finite Domain Constraint Programming Systems (Christian Schulte, Mats Carlsson) 
Chapter 15. Operations Research Methods in Constraint Programming (John Hooker) 
Chapter 16. Continuous and Interval Constraints(Frederic Benhamou, Laurent Granvilliers) 
Chapter 17. Constraints over Structured Domains
(Carmen Gervet) 
Chapter 18. Randomness and Structure (Carla Gomes, Toby Walsh)
Chapter 19. Temporal CSPs (Manolis Koubarakis)
Chapter 20. Distributed Constraint Programming
(Boi Faltings) 
Chapter 21. Uncertainty and Change (Kenneth N. Brown, Ian Miguel)
Chapter 22. Constraint-Based Scheduling and Planning
(Philippe Baptiste, Philippe Laborie, Claude Le Pape, Wim Nuijten)
Chapter 23. Vehicle Routing (Philip Kilby, Paul Shaw) 
Chapter 24. Configuration (Ulrich Junker)
Chapter 25. Constraint Applications in Networks
(Helmut Simonis)
Chapter 26. Bioinformatics and Constraints (Rolf Backofen, David Gilbert)

/pdf/handbook-of-constraint-programming-53srutguo2.pdf

Handbook of Constraint Programming

Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) refers to the problem of determining whether a first-order formula is satisfiable with respect to some logical theory. Solvers based on SMT are used as back-end engines in model-checking applications such as bounded, interpolation-based, and predicate-abstraction-based model checking. After a brief illustration of these uses, we survey the predominant techniques for solving SMT problems with an emphasis on the lazy approach, in which a propositional satisfiability (SAT) solver is combined with one or more theory solvers. We discuss the architecture of a lazy SMT solver, give examples of theory solvers, show how to combine such solvers modularly, and mention several extensions of the lazy approach. We also briefly describe the eager approach in which the SMT problem is reduced to a SAT problem. Finally, we discuss how the basic framework for determining satisfiability can be extended with additional functionality such as producing models, proofs, unsatisfiable cores, and interpolants.

Satisfiability Modulo Theories

One of the most important features of current state-of-the-art SAT solvers is the use of conflict based backtracking and learning techniques. In this paper, we generalize various conflict driven learning strategies in terms of different partitioning schemes of the implication graph. We re-examine the learning techniques used in various SAT solvers and propose an array of new learning schemes. Extensive experiments with real world examples show that the best performing new learning scheme has at least a 2/spl times/ speedup compared with learning schemes employed in state-of-the-art SAT solvers.

/pdf/efficient-conflict-driven-learning-in-a-boolean-12te839wng.pdf

Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver

A method and apparatus for managing power consumption in a computer system wherein the method and apparatus is compliant with the proposed Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) specification. In one embodiment, a power management processor is sandwiched between platform hardware and the ACPI register layer. The processor processes all operating power management commands and requests while remaining transparent to the user and the operating system. In so doing, routine power management functions, so classified by the operating system, are implemented by the operating system. Sophisticated power management features, on the other hand, are implemented by the present invention independent from operating system control. Accordingly, in the present invention, the operating system need not suspend processing of other threads to process sophisticated power management procedures.

Conflict-Driven clause learning SAT solvers

This paper presents open-wbo, a new MaxSAT solver. open-wbo has two main features. First, it is an open-source solver that can be easily modified and extended. Most MaxSAT solvers are not available in open-source, making it hard to extend and improve current MaxSAT algorithms. Second, open-wbo may use any MiniSAT-like solver as the underlying SAT solver. As many other MaxSAT solvers, open-wbo relies on successive calls to a SAT solver. Even though new techniques are proposed for SAT solvers every year, for many MaxSAT solvers it is hard to change the underlying SAT solver. With open-wbo, advances in SAT technology will result in a free improvement in the performance of the solver. In addition, the paper uses open-wbo to evaluate the impact of using different SAT solvers in the performance of MaxSAT algorithms.

/pdf/open-wbo-a-modular-maxsat-solver-13hcnvpher.pdf

Open-WBO: A Modular MaxSAT Solver ,

Certifying a SAT solver for unsatisfiable instances is a computationally hard problem Nevertheless, in the utilization of SAT in industrial settings, one often needs to be able to generate unsatisfiability proofs, either to guarantee the correctness of the SAT solver or as part of the utilization of SAT in some applications (eg in model checking) As part of the process of generating unsatisfiable proofs, one is also interested in unsatisfiable subformulas of the original formula, also known as unsatisfiable cores Furthermore, it may by useful identifying theminimum unsatisfiable core of a given problem instance, ie the smallest number of clauses that make the instance unsatisfiable This approach is be very useful in AI problems where identifying the minimum core is crucial for correcting the minimum amount of inconsistent information (eg in knowledge bases)

/pdf/on-computing-minimum-unsatisfiable-cores-ju8mxd7w0g.pdf

On Computing Minimum Unsatisfiable Cores

Sudoku is a very simple and well-known puzzle that has achieved international popularity in the recent past. This paper addresses the problem of encoding Sudoku puzzles into conjunctive normal form (CNF), and subsequently solving them using polynomial-time propositional satisfiability (SAT) inference techniques. We introduce two straightforward SAT encodings for Sudoku: the minimal encoding and the extended encoding. The minimal encoding suffices to characterize Sudoku puzzles, whereas the extended encoding adds redundant clauses to the minimal encoding. Experimental results demonstrate that, for thousands of very hard puzzles, inference techniques struggle to solve these puzzles when using the minimal encoding. However, using the extended encoding, unit propagation is able to solve about half of our set of puzzles. Nonetheless, for some puzzles more sophisticated inference techniques are required.

/pdf/sudoku-as-a-sat-problem-2ckd5fytcl.pdf

Sudoku as a SAT Problem.

Motivated by the performance improvements made to SAT solvers in recent years, a number of different encodings of constraints into SAT have been proposed. Concrete examples are the different SAT encodings for ≤ 1 (x1, . . . , xn) constraints. The most widely used encoding is known as the pairwise encoding, which is quadratic in the number of variables in the constraint. Alternative encodings are in general linear, and require using additional auxiliary variables. In most settings, the pairwise encoding performs acceptably well, but can require unacceptably large Boolean formulas. In contrast, linear encodings yield much smaller Boolean formulas, but in practice SAT solvers often perform unpredictably. This lack of predictability is mostly due to the large number of auxiliary variables that need to be added to the resulting Boolean formula. This paper studies one specific encoding for ≤ 1 (x1, . . . , xn) constraints, and shows how a state-of-the-art SAT solver can be adapted to overcome the problem of adding additional auxiliary variables. Moreover, the paper shows that a SAT solver may essentially ignore the existence of auxiliary variables. Experimental results indicate that the modified SAT solver becomes significantly more robust on SAT encodings involving ≤ 1 (x1, . . . , xn) constraints.

/pdf/towards-robust-cnf-encodings-of-cardinality-constraints-2ydwjg1r0g.pdf

Inês Lynce

Papers

Conflict-Driven clause learning SAT solvers

Open-WBO: A Modular MaxSAT Solver ,

On Computing Minimum Unsatisfiable Cores

Sudoku as a SAT Problem.

Towards robust CNF encodings of cardinality constraints