On CDCL-Based Proof Systems with the Ordered Decision Strategy

We prove that CDCL SAT-solvers with the ordered decision strategy and the DECISION learning scheme are equivalent to ordered resolution. We also prove that, by replacing this learning scheme with its opposite, which learns the first possible non-conflict clause, they become equivalent to general resolution. In both results, we allow nondeterminism in the solver’s ability to perform unit propagation, conflict analysis, and restarts in a way that is similar to previous works in the literature. To aid the presentation of our results, and possibly future research, we define a model and language for CDCL-based proof systems – particularly those with nonstandard features – that allow for succinct and precise theorem statements.

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

[2]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Handbook of Satisfiability: Volume 185 Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications , 2009 .

[3]  Jan Johannsen,et al.  Trade-offs Between Time and Memory in a Tighter Model of CDCL SAT Solvers , 2016, SAT.

[4]  Ralph Eric McGregor.  Automated Theorem Proving Using SAT , 2011 .

[5]  K. Sakallah,et al.  MINCE: A Static Global Variable-Ordering for SAT and BDD , 2001 .

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

[7]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Understanding VSIDS Branching Heuristics in Conflict-Driven Clause-Learning SAT Solvers , 2015, Haifa Verification Conference.

[8]  Ashish Sabharwal,et al.  Non-Restarting SAT Solvers with Simple Preprocessing Can Efficiently Simulate Resolution , 2014, AAAI.

[9]  Archie Blake.  Canonical expressions in Boolean algebra , 1938 .

[10]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers as resolution engines , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis--Putnam--Logemann--Loveland procedure to DPLL(T) , 2006, JACM.

[12]  Malay K. Ganai,et al.  Efficient SAT-based bounded model checking for software verification , 2008, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Small Stone in Pool , 2014, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..

[14]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Lower Bounds for Width-Restricted Clause Learning on Small Width Formulas , 2010, SAT.

[15]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  Efficiently Calculating Evolutionary Tree Measures Using SAT , 2009, SAT.

[16]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  FORCE : A Fast & Easy-t o-Implement Variable-Ordering Heuristic , 2003 .

[17]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  On the Relative Complexity of Resolution Refinements and Cutting Planes Proof Systems , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

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

[19]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Towards a Complexity-Theoretic Understanding of Restarts in SAT Solvers , 2020, SAT.

[20]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  FORCE: a fast and easy-to-implement variable-ordering heuristic , 2003, GLSVLSI '03.

[21]  Marc Vinyals,et al.  Hard Examples for Common Variable Decision Heuristics , 2020, AAAI.

[22]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Clause Learning Can Effectively P-Simulate General Propositional Resolution , 2008, AAAI.

[23]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle , 1965, JACM.

[24]  Gilles Audemard,et al.  Predicting Learnt Clauses Quality in Modern SAT Solvers , 2009, IJCAI.

[25]  Chao Wang,et al.  SAT-Based Verification Methods and Applications in Hardware Verification , 2006, SFM.

[26]  Armin Biere,et al.  Evaluating CDCL Restart Schemes , 2018, POS@SAT.

[27]  Beate Bollig,et al.  On the complexity of the hidden weighted bit function for various BDD models , 1999, RAIRO Theor. Informatics Appl..

[28]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  The Efficiency of Resolution and Davis--Putnam Procedures , 2002, SIAM J. Comput..

[29]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple , 2001, JACM.

[30]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  The Impact of Branching Heuristics in Propositional Satisfiability Algorithms , 1999, EPIA.

[31]  Johannes Klaus Fichte,et al.  Clause-Learning Algorithms with Many Restarts and Bounded-Width Resolution , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[32]  Holger Hermanns,et al.  Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[33]  Roberto J. Bayardo,et al.  Using CSP Look-Back Techniques to Solve Real-World SAT Instances , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[34]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Resolution Trees with Lemmas: Resolution Refinements that Characterize DLL Algorithms with Clause Learning , 2008, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..

[35]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Improved Separations of Regular Resolution from Clause Learning Proof Systems , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[36]  Allen Van Gelder,et al.  Pool Resolution and Its Relation to Regular Resolution and DPLL with Clause Learning , 2005, LPAR.

[37]  J. Christopher Beck,et al.  (I Can Get) Satisfaction: Preference-Based Scheduling for Concert-Goers at Multi-venue Music Festivals , 2017, SAT.

[38]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The Relative Efficiency of Propositional Proof Systems , 1979, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[39]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  GRASP: A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[40]  Jakob Nordström,et al.  Pebble Games, Proof Complexity, and Time-Space Trade-offs , 2013, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..