Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing

SAT 2019: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2019 pp 136–154Cite as

Incremental Inprocessing in SAT Solving

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11628))

Abstract

Incremental SAT is about solving a sequence of related SAT problems efficiently. It makes use of already learned information to avoid repeating redundant work. Also preprocessing and inprocessing are considered to be crucial. Our calculus uses the most general redundancy property and extends existing inprocessing rules to incremental SAT solving. It allows to automatically reverse earlier simplification steps, which are inconsistent with literals in new incrementally added clauses. Our approach to incremental SAT solving not only simplifies the use of inprocessing but also substantially improves solving time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Audemard, G., Lagniez, J.-M., Simon, L.: Improving glucose for incremental SAT solving with assumptions: application to MUS extraction. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 309–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39071-5_23

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Balyo, T., Biere, A., Iser, M., Sinz, C.: SAT race 2015. Artif. Intell. 241, 45–65 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Hooker, J.N.: Solving the incremental satisfiability problem. J. Log. Program. 15(1&2), 177–186 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89(4), 543–560 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kupferschmid, S., Lewis, M.D.T., Schubert, T., Becker, B.: Incremental preprocessing methods for use in BMC. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 39(2), 185–204 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gocht, S., Balyo, T.: Accelerating SAT based planning with incremental SAT solving. In: Barbulescu, L., Frank, J., Mausam, Smith, S.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2017, pp. 135–139. AAAI Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Martins, R., Joshi, S., Manquinho, V.M., Lynce, I.: On using incremental encodings in unsatisfiability-based MaxSAT solving. JSAT 9, 59–81 (2014)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Nadel, A.: Boosting minimal unsatisfiable core extraction. In: Bloem, R., Sharygina, N. (eds.) Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2010, pp. 221–229. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sebastiani, R.: Lazy satisability modulo theories. JSAT 3(3–4), 141–224 (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Bacchus, F., Winter, J.: Effective preprocessing with hyper-resolution and equality reduction. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 341–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_26

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11499107_5

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M., Biere, A.: Efficient CNF simplification based on binary implication graphs. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 201–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Järvisalo, M., Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H.: Blocked clause elimination. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12002-2_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Järvisalo, M., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Inprocessing rules. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7364, pp. 355–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31365-3_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Järvisalo, M., Biere, A.: Reconstructing solutions after blocked clause elimination. In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S. (eds.) SAT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6175, pp. 340–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14186-7_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Nadel, A., Ryvchin, V., Strichman, O.: Preprocessing in incremental SAT. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 256–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Heule, M.J.H., Kiesl, B., Biere, A.: Short proofs without new variables. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) CADE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10395, pp. 130–147. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Heule, M.J.H., Kiesl, B., Biere, A.: Strong extension-free proof systems. J. Autom. Reason. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-019-09516-0

  22. Audemard, G., Katsirelos, G., Simon, L.: A restriction of extended resolution for clause learning sat solvers. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2010). AAAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kullmann, O.: On a generalization of extended resolution. Discret. Appl. Math. 96–97, 149–176 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Manthey, N., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Automated reencoding of Boolean formulas. In: Biere, A., Nahir, A., Vos, T. (eds.) HVC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7857, pp. 102–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39611-3_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Nadel, A., Ryvchin, V., Strichman, O.: Ultimately incremental SAT. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 206–218. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_16

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Nadel, A., Ryvchin, V.: Efficient SAT solving under assumptions. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 242–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_19

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Blanchette, J.C., Fleury, M., Lammich, P., Weidenbach, C.: A verified SAT solver framework with learn, forget, restart, and incrementality. J. Autom. Reason. 61(1–4), 333–365 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Fazekas, K., Bacchus, F., Biere, A.: Implicit hitting set algorithms for maximum satisfiability modulo theories. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10900, pp. 134–151. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Balyo, T., Fröhlich, A., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Everything you always wanted to know about blocked sets (but were afraid to ask). In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 317–332. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Biere, A.: Yet another local search solver and Lingeling and friends entering the SAT competition 2014. In: Balint, A., Belov, A., Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M. (eds.) SAT Competition 2014. Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B, pp. 39–40. University of Helsinki (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Aspvall, B., Plass, M.F., Tarjan, R.E.: A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified Boolean formulas. Inf. Process. Lett. 8(3), 121–123 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Brafman, R.I.: A simplifier for propositional formulas with many binary clauses. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2001, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 515–522 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Biere, A.: CaDiCaL, Lingeling, Plingeling, Treengeling and YalSAT entering the SAT competition 2018. In: Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M., Suda, M. (eds.) Proceedings of SAT Competition 2018 - Solver and Benchmark Descriptions. Volume B-2018-1 of Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B, pp. 13–14. University of Helsinki (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Luo, M., Li, C., Xiao, F., Manyà, F., Lü, Z.: An effective learnt clause minimization approach for CDCL SAT solvers. In: Sierra, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, pp. 703–711. ijcai.org (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Piette, C., Hamadi, Y., Sais, L.: Vivifying propositional clausal formulae. In: Ghallab, M., Spyropoulos, C.D., Fakotakis, N., Avouris, N.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2008. Volume 178 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 525–529. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schwartz, E.J., Avgerinos, T., Brumley, D.: All you ever wanted to know about dynamic taint analysis and forward symbolic execution (but might have been afraid to ask). In: 31st IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, S&P 2010, 16–19 May 2010, pp. 317–331. IEEE Computer Society, Berleley/Oakland (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Wieringa, S.: AIGER 1.9 and beyond. Technical report, FMV reports series, Institute for Formal Models and Verification, Johannes Kepler University, Altenbergerstr. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Biere, A., van Dijk, T., Heljanko, K.: Hardware model checking competition 2017. In: Stewart, D., Weissenbacher, G. (eds.) Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, FMCAD 2017, p. 9. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jussila, T., Biere, A.: Compressing BMC encodings with QBF. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 174(3), 45–56 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M., Biere, A.: Revisiting hyper binary resolution. In: Gomes, C., Sellmann, M. (eds.) CPAIOR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7874, pp. 77–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38171-3_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuehlmann, A., Paruthi, V., Krohm, F., Ganai, M.K.: Robust Boolean reasoning for equivalence checking and functional property verification. IEEE Trans CAD Integr. Circ. Syst. 21(12), 1377–1394 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brummayer, R., Biere, A.: Local two-level and-inverter graph minimization without blowup. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS 2006) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Niemetz, A., Preiner, M., Wolf, C., Biere, A.: Btor2, BtorMC and Boolector 3.0. In: Chockler, H., Weissenbacher, G. (eds.) CAV 2018. LNCS, vol. 10981, pp. 587–595. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Balyo, T., Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M. (eds.): Proceedings of SAT Competition 2016 - Solver and Benchmark Descriptions. Volume B-2016-1 of Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B. University of Helsinki (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Balyo, T., Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M., (eds.): Proceedings of SAT Competition 2017 - Solver and Benchmark Descriptions. Volume B-2017-1 of Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B. University of Helsinki (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Glucose and syrup in the SAT 2017. In: Balyo, T., Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M. (eds.) Proceedings of SAT Competition 2017 - Solver and Benchmark Descriptions. Volume B-2017-1 of Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B, pp. 16–17. University of Helsinki (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Soos, M., Nohl, K., Castelluccia, C.: Extending SAT solvers to cryptographic problems. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 244–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02777-2_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Manthey, N.: Riss 7. In Balyo, T., Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M., (eds.) Proceedings of SAT Competition 2017 - Solver and Benchmark Descriptions. Volume B-2017-1 of Department of Computer Science Series of Publications B, p. 29. University of Helsinki (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Han, H., Somenzi, F.: Alembic: an efficient algorithm for CNF preprocessing. In: Proceedings of the 44th Design Automation Conference, DAC 2007, pp. 582–587. IEEE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under projects W1255-N23 and S11408-N23. We thank Mathias Preiner and Aina Niemetz for their help in experimenting with Boolector and Håkan Hjort for providing feedback on using an incremental version of CaDiCaL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria

    Katalin Fazekas & Armin Biere

  2. Albert–Ludwigs–University, Freiburg, Germany

    Christoph Scholl

Authors
  1. Katalin Fazekas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin Biere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Scholl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katalin Fazekas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Mikoláš Janota

  2. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Inês Lynce

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fazekas, K., Biere, A., Scholl, C. (2019). Incremental Inprocessing in SAT Solving. In: Janota, M., Lynce, I. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2019. SAT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11628. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24258-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24258-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24257-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24258-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation