Improved Conflict-Clause Minimization Leads to Improved Propositional Proof Traces

Recent empirical results show that recursive, or expensive, conflict-clause minimization is quite beneficial on industrial-style propositional satisfiability problems. The details of this procedure appear to be unpublished to date, but may be found in the open-source code of MiniSat 2.0, for example. Biere reports that proof traces are made more complicated when conflict-clause minimization is used because some clauses need to be resolved upon multiple times during the minimization procedure as found in MiniSat 2.0. Biere proposes a proof-trace format in which the set of clause numbers needed for a certain derivation is given, but their order is not specified. This paper presents a new procedure for conflict-clause minimization that is slightly more efficient and, more importantly, discovers a correct order so that each clause used for the derivation is resolved upon only once. This permits the proof trace to specify the order in which to use the clauses, greatly reducing the burden on software that processes the proof trace. The method is validated on the unsatisfiable formulas used for industrial benchmarks in the verified-unsatisfiable track of the SAT 2007 competition.

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

[2]  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).

[3]  Allen Van Gelder.  Verifying Propositional Unsatisfiability: Pitfalls to Avoid , 2007, SAT.

[4]  Armin Biere,et al.  Extended Resolution Proofs for Conjoining BDDs , 2006, CSR.

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

[6]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2007, 10th International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, May 28-31, 2007, Proceedings , 2007, SAT.

[7]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: practical implementations and other applications , 2003, 2003 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.

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

[9]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Extracting small unsatis able cores from unsatis able boolean formulas , 2003 .

[10]  Sara Baase,et al.  Computer algorithms - introduction to design and analysis (2 ed.) , 1988 .

[11]  Allen Van Gelder,et al.  Computer Algorithms: Introduction to Design and Analysis , 1978 .

[12]  Eugene Goldberg,et al.  Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas , 2003, 2003 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.

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