GRASP—a new search algorithm for satisfiability
10 Nov 1996-pp 220-227
TL;DR: Experimental results obtained from a large number of benchmarks, including many from the field of test pattern generation, indicate that application of the proposed conflict analysis techniques to SAT algorithms can be extremely effective for aLarge number of representative classes of SAT instances.
Abstract: This paper introduces GRASP (Generic seaRch Algorithm for the Satisfiability Problem), an integrated algorithmic framework for SAT that unifies several previously proposed search-pruning techniques and facilitates identification of additional ones. GRASP is premised on the inevitability of conflicts during search and its most distinguishing feature is the augmentation of basic backtracking search with a powerful conflict analysis procedure. Analyzing conflicts to determine their causes enables GRASP to backtrack non-chronologically to earlier levels in the search tree, potentially pruning large portions of the search space. In addition, by "recording" the causes of conflicts, GRASP can recognize and preempt the occurrence of similar conflicts later on in the search. Finally, straightforward bookkeeping of the causality chains leading up to conflicts allows GRASP to identify assignments that are necessary for a solution to be found. Experimental results obtained from a large number of benchmarks, including many from the field of test pattern generation, indicate that application of the proposed conflict analysis techniques to SAT algorithms can be extremely effective for a large number of representative classes of SAT instances.
Citations
More filters
05 May 2003
TL;DR: This article presents a small, complete, and efficient SAT-solver in the style of conflict-driven learning, as exemplified by Chaff, and includes among other things a mechanism for adding arbitrary boolean constraints.
Abstract: In this article, we present a small, complete, and efficient SAT-solver in the style of conflict-driven learning, as exemplified by Chaff. We aim to give sufficient details about implementation to enable the reader to construct his or her own solver in a very short time.This will allow users of SAT-solvers to make domain specific extensions or adaptions of current state-of-the-art SAT-techniques, to meet the needs of a particular application area. The presented solver is designed with this in mind, and includes among other things a mechanism for adding arbitrary boolean constraints. It also supports solving a series of related SAT-problems efficiently by an incremental SAT-interface.
2,985 citations
Cites background or methods from "GRASP—a new search algorithm for sa..."
...Learning. The learning procedure of MINISAT follows the ideas of Marques-Silva and Sakallah in [ MS96 ]....
[...]
...A basic knowledge about SAT is assumed (see for instance [ MS96 ])....
[...]
...We will do this by presenting the code of a minimal SAT-solver MINISAT, based on the ideas for conflict-driven backtracking [ MS96 ], together with watched literals and dynamic variable ordering [MZ01]....
[...]
...This article will treat the popular style of SAT-solvers based on the DPLL algorithm [DLL62], backtracking by conflict analysis and clause recording (also referred to as learning) [ MS96 ], and boolean constraint propagation (BCP) using watched literals [MZ01]....
[...]
...If the clause is unit for several decision levels, it is advantageous to chose the lowest level (referred to as backjumping or non-chronological backtracking [ MS96 ])....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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)
1,527 citations
TL;DR: Experimental results obtained from a large number of benchmarks indicate that application of the proposed conflict analysis techniques to SAT algorithms can be extremely effective for aLarge number of representative classes of SAT instances.
Abstract: This paper introduces GRASP (Generic seaRch Algorithm for the Satisfiability Problem), a new search algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability (SAT). GRASP incorporates several search-pruning techniques that proved to be quite powerful on a wide variety of SAT problems. Some of these techniques are specific to SAT, whereas others are similar in spirit to approaches in other fields of Artificial Intelligence. GRASP is premised on the inevitability of conflicts during the search and its most distinguishing feature is the augmentation of basic backtracking search with a powerful conflict analysis procedure. Analyzing conflicts to determine their causes enables GRASP to backtrack nonchronologically to earlier levels in the search tree, potentially pruning large portions of the search space. In addition, by "recording" the causes of conflicts, GRASP can recognize and preempt the occurrence of similar conflicts later on in the search. Finally, straightforward bookkeeping of the causality chains leading up to conflicts allows GRASP to identify assignments that are necessary for a solution to be found. Experimental results obtained from a large number of benchmarks indicate that application of the proposed conflict analysis techniques to SAT algorithms can be extremely effective for a large number of representative classes of SAT instances.
1,482 citations
Cites result from "GRASP—a new search algorithm for sa..."
...7. These comparisons were conducted in 1995 and 1996 [26], [ 27 ] and do not reflect enhancements (some adapted from GRASP) that were made to several of these programs since then....
[...]
TL;DR: This article surveys a technique called Bounded Model Checking (BMC), which uses a propositional SAT solver rather than BDD manipulation techniques, and is widely perceived as a complementary technique to BDD-based model checking.
Abstract: Symbolic model checking with Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) has been successfully used in the last decade for formally verifying finite state systems such as sequential circuits and protocols. Since its introduction in the beginning of the 90's, it has been integrated in the quality assurance process of several major hardware companies. The main bottleneck of this method is that BDDs may grow exponentially, and hence the amount of available memory re- stricts the size of circuits that can be verified efficiently. In this article we survey a technique called Bounded Model Checking (BMC), which uses a propositional SAT solver rather than BDD manipulation techniques. Since its introduction in 1999, BMC has been well received by the industry. It can find many logical er- rors in complex systems that can not be handled by competing techniques, and is therefore widely perceived as a complementary technique to BDD-based model checking. This observation is supported by several independent comparisons that have been published in the last few years.
904 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: The architecture of a lazy SMT solver is discussed, examples of theory solvers are given, how to combine such solvers modularly is shown, and several extensions of the lazy approach are mentioned.
Abstract: 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.
884 citations
References
More filters
01 Jan 1979
42,654 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1979
TL;DR: The second edition of a quarterly column as discussed by the authors provides a continuing update to the list of problems (NP-complete and harder) presented by M. R. Garey and myself in our book "Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness,” W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1979.
Abstract: This is the second edition of a quarterly column the purpose of which is to provide a continuing update to the list of problems (NP-complete and harder) presented by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness,’’ W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘[G&J]’’; previous columns will be referred to by their dates). A background equivalent to that provided by [G&J] is assumed. Readers having results they would like mentioned (NP-hardness, PSPACE-hardness, polynomial-time-solvability, etc.), or open problems they would like publicized, should send them to David S. Johnson, Room 2C355, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ 07974, including details, or at least sketches, of any new proofs (full papers are preferred). In the case of unpublished results, please state explicitly that you would like the results mentioned in the column. Comments and corrections are also welcome. For more details on the nature of the column and the form of desired submissions, see the December 1981 issue of this journal.
40,020 citations
01 Jan 1979
12,336 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: The new edition of Breuer-Friedman's Diagnosis and Reliable Design ofDigital Systems offers comprehensive and state-ofthe-art treatment of both testing and testable design.
Abstract: For many years, Breuer-Friedman's Diagnosis and Reliable Design ofDigital Systems was the most widely used textbook in digital system testing and testable design. Now, Computer Science Press makes available a new and greativ expanded edition. Incorporating a significant amount of new material related to recently developed technologies, the new edition offers comprehensive and state-ofthe-art treatment of both testing and testable design.
2,758 citations
"GRASP—a new search algorithm for sa..." refers methods in this paper
...Iterated application of the unit clause rule is commonly referred to as Boolean Constraint Propagation (BCP) [30] or as derivation of implications in the electronic CAD literature [1]....
[...]
TL;DR: In the present paper, a uniform proof procedure for quantification theory is given which is feasible for use with some rather complicated formulas and which does not ordinarily lead to exponentiation.
Abstract: The hope that mathematical methods employed in the investigation of formal logic would lead to purely computational methods for obtaining mathematical theorems goes back to Leibniz and has been revived by Peano around the turn of the century and by Hilbert's school in the 1920's. Hilbert, noting that all of classical mathematics could be formalized within quantification theory, declared that the problem of finding an algorithm for determining whether or not a given formula of quantification theory is valid was the central problem of mathematical logic. And indeed, at one time it seemed as if investigations of this “decision” problem were on the verge of success. However, it was shown by Church and by Turing that such an algorithm can not exist. This result led to considerable pessimism regarding the possibility of using modern digital computers in deciding significant mathematical questions. However, recently there has been a revival of interest in the whole question. Specifically, it has been realized that while no decision procedure exists for quantification theory there are many proof procedures available—that is, uniform procedures which will ultimately locate a proof for any formula of quantification theory which is valid but which will usually involve seeking “forever” in the case of a formula which is not valid—and that some of these proof procedures could well turn out to be feasible for use with modern computing machinery.Hao Wang [9] and P. C. Gilmore [3] have each produced working programs which employ proof procedures in quantification theory. Gilmore's program employs a form of a basic theorem of mathematical logic due to Herbrand, and Wang's makes use of a formulation of quantification theory related to those studied by Gentzen. However, both programs encounter decisive difficulties with any but the simplest formulas of quantification theory, in connection with methods of doing propositional calculus. Wang's program, because of its use of Gentzen-like methods, involves exponentiation on the total number of truth-functional connectives, whereas Gilmore's program, using normal forms, involves exponentiation on the number of clauses present. Both methods are superior in many cases to truth table methods which involve exponentiation on the total number of variables present, and represent important initial contributions, but both run into difficulty with some fairly simple examples.In the present paper, a uniform proof procedure for quantification theory is given which is feasible for use with some rather complicated formulas and which does not ordinarily lead to exponentiation. The superiority of the present procedure over those previously available is indicated in part by the fact that a formula on which Gilmore's routine for the IBM 704 causes the machine to computer for 21 minutes without obtaining a result was worked successfully by hand computation using the present method in 30 minutes. Cf. §6, below.It should be mentioned that, before it can be hoped to employ proof procedures for quantification theory in obtaining proofs of theorems belonging to “genuine” mathematics, finite axiomatizations, which are “short,” must be obtained for various branches of mathematics. This last question will not be pursued further here; cf., however, Davis and Putnam [2], where one solution to this problem is given for ele
2,743 citations
"GRASP—a new search algorithm for sa..." refers methods in this paper
...Over the years, many algorithmic solutions have been proposed for SAT, the most well known being the different variations of the Davis-Putnam procedure [5]....
[...]
...Putnam [5]....
[...]