Generalized Conflict-Clause Strengthening for Satisfiability Solvers

The dominant propositional satisfiability solvers of the past decade use a technique often called conflict-driven clause learning (cdcl), although nomenclature varies. The first half of the decade concentrated on deriving the best clause from the conflict graph that the technique constructs, also with much emphasis on speed. In the second half of the decade efforts have emerged to exploit other information that is derived by the technique as a by-product of generating the conflict graph and learning a conflict clause. The main thrust has been to strengthen the conflict clause by eliminating some of its literals, a process often called conflict-clause minimization, but more accurately described as conflictclause width reduction, or strengthening. This paper first introduces implication sequences as a general framework to represent all the information derived by the CDCL technique, some of which is not represented in the conflict graph. Then the paper analyzes the structure of this information. The first main result is that any conflict clause that is a logical consequence of an implication sequence may be derived by a particularly simple form of resolution, known as linear input regular. A key observation needed for this result is that the set of clauses in any implication sequence is Horn-renamable. The second main result is that, given an implication sequence, and a clause C derived (learned) from it, it is NP-hard to find a minimum-cardinality subset of C that is also derivable. This is in sharp contrast to the known fact that such a minimum subset can be found quickly if the derivation is restricted to using only clauses in the conflict graph.

[1]  Hans Kleine Büning,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2008, 11th International Conference, SAT 2008, Guangzhou, China, May 12-15, 2008. Proceedings , 2008, SAT.

[2]  Hans K. Buning,et al.  Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms , 1999 .

[3]  Lakhdar Sais,et al.  A Generalized Framework for Conflict Analysis , 2008, SAT.

[4]  J. P. Marques,et al.  GRASP : A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999 .

[5]  Fabio Somenzi,et al.  On-the-Fly Clause Improvement , 2009, SAT.

[6]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[7]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  Automated theorem proving: a logical basis , 1978, Fundamental studies in computer science.

[8]  Niklas Een,et al.  MiniSat v1.13 - A SAT Solver with Conflict-Clause Minimization , 2005 .

[9]  Armin Biere,et al.  Minimizing Learned Clauses , 2009, SAT.

[10]  Armin Biere,et al.  PicoSAT Essentials , 2008, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[11]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  A New Clause Learning Scheme for Efficient Unsatisfiability Proofs , 2008, AAAI.

[12]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[13]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory , 1960, JACM.

[14]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[15]  Richard C. T. Lee,et al.  Symbolic logic and mechanical theorem proving , 1973, Computer science classics.

[16]  Allen Van Gelder Improved Conflict-Clause Minimization Leads to Improved Propositional Proof Traces , 2009, SAT.

[17]  Oliver Kullmann,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2009, 12th International Conference, SAT 2009, Swansea, UK, June 30 - July 3, 2009. Proceedings , 2009, SAT.

[18]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[19]  Henry A. Kautz,et al.  Towards Understanding and Harnessing the Potential of Clause Learning , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Conflict driven learning in a quantified Boolean Satisfiability solver , 2002, ICCAD 2002.

[21]  Lawrence J. Henschen,et al.  Unit Refutations and Horn Sets , 1974, JACM.