[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.5555/3370272.3370309dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescasconConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SAT solvers and computer algebra systems: a powerful combination for mathematics

Published: 04 November 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Over the last few decades, many distinct lines of research aimed at automating mathematics have been developed, including computer algebra systems (CASs) for mathematical modelling, automated theorem provers for first-order logic, SAT/SMT solvers aimed at program verification, and higher-order proof assistants for checking mathematical proofs. More recently, some of these lines of research have started to converge in complementary ways. One success story is the combination of SAT solvers and CASs (SAT+CAS) aimed at resolving mathematical conjectures.
Many conjectures in pure and applied mathematics are not amenable to traditional proof methods. Instead, they are best addressed via computational methods that involve very large combinatorial search spaces. SAT solvers are powerful methods to search through such large combinatorial spaces---consequently, many problems from a variety of mathematical domains have been reduced to SAT in an attempt to resolve them. However, solvers traditionally lack deep repositories of mathematical domain knowledge that can be crucial to pruning such large search spaces. By contrast, CASs are deep repositories of mathematical knowledge but lack efficient general search capabilities. By combining the search power of SAT with the deep mathematical knowledge in CASs we can solve many problems in mathematics that no other known methods seem capable of solving.
We demonstrate the success of the SAT+CAS paradigm by highlighting many conjectures that have been disproven, verified, or partially verified using our tool MathCheck. These successes indicate that the paradigm is positioned to become a standard method for solving problems requiring both a significant amount of search and deep mathematical reasoning. For example, the SAT+CAS paradigm has recently been used by Heule, Kauers, and Seidl to find many new algorithms for 3 × 3 matrix multiplication.

References

[1]
E. Ábrahám. Building bridges between symbolic computation and satisfiability checking. In S. Linton, editor, Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, pages 1--6. ACM, 2015.
[2]
S. Arunachalam and I. Kotsireas. Hard satisfiable 3-SAT instances via autocorrelation. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 10:11--22, 2016.
[3]
C. Bright, D. Đoković, I. Kotsireas, and V. Ganesh. A SAT+CAS approach to finding good matrices: New examples and counterexamples. In Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1435--1442. AAAI Press, 2019.
[4]
C. Bright, D. Đoković, I. Kotsireas, and V. Ganesh. The SAT+CAS method for combinatorial search with applications to best matrices. Submited, 2019.
[5]
C. Bright, V. Ganesh, A. Heinle, I. Kotsireas, S. Nejati, and K. Czarnecki. Math-Check2: A SAT+CAS verifier for combinatorial conjectures. In V. P. Gerdt, W. Koepf, W. M. Seiler, and E. V. Vorozhtsov, editors, International Workshop on Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing, pages 117--133. Springer, 2016.
[6]
C. Bright, I. Kotsireas, and V. Ganesh. A SAT+CAS method for enumerating Williamson matrices of even order. In S. A. McIlraith and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, Tirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 6573--6580. AAAI Press, 2018.
[7]
C. Bright, I. Kotsireas, and V. Ganesh. Applying computer algebra systems with SAT solvers to the Williamson conjecture. Journal of Symbolic Computation, to appear, 2019.
[8]
C. Bright, I. Kotsireas, A. Heinle, and V. Ganesh. Enumeration of complex Golay pairs via programmatic SAT. In C. Arreche, editor, Proceedings of the 2018 ACM on International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ISSAC 2018, New York, NY, USA, July 16--19, 2018, pages 111--118, 2018.
[9]
C. Bright, I. Kotsireas, A. Heinle, and V. Ganesh. Complex Golay pairs up to length 28: A search via computer algebra and programmatic SAT. Journal of Symbolic Computation, to appear, 2019.
[10]
J. Cooper and C. Poirel. Pythagorean partition-regularity and ordered triple systems with the sum property. arXiv 0809.3478, 2008.
[11]
R. Craigen, W. Holzmann, and H. Kharaghani. Complex Golay sequences: structure and applications. Discrete Mathematics, 252(1-3):73--89, 2002.
[12]
H. F. de Groote. On varieties of optimal algorithms for the computation of bilinear mappings II. Optimal algorithms for 2 × 2-matrix multiplication. Theoretical Computer Science, 7(2):127--148, 1978.
[13]
M. DeVos. Edge-antipodal colorings of cubes. Open Problem Garden, 2008.
[14]
D. Ž. Đoković. Williamson matrices of order 4n for n = 33, 35, 39. Discrete Mathematics, 115(1--3):267--271, 1993.
[15]
D. Ž. Đoković and I. S. Kotsireas. Goethals-Seidel difference families with symmetric or skew base blocks. Mathematics in Computer Science, 12(4):373--388, 2018.
[16]
G. Exoo. A lower bound for Schur numbers and multicolor Ramsey numbers of K3. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 8:1, 1994.
[17]
T. Feder and C. Subi. On hypercube labellings and antipodal monochromatic paths. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 161(10--11):1421--1426, 2013.
[18]
F. Fiedler. Small Golay sequences. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 7(4):379--407, 2013.
[19]
J. Fink. Perfect matchings extend to Hamilton cycles in hypercubes. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 97(6):1074--1076, 2007.
[20]
S. Georgiou, C. Koukouvinos, and J. Seberry. On circulant best matrices and their applications. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 48(3):263--274, 2001.
[21]
S. Georgiou, C. Koukouvinos, and S. Stylianou. On good matrices, skew Hadamard matrices and optimal designs. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 41(1):171--184, 2002.
[22]
S. W. Golomb and L. D. Baumert. The search for Hadamard matrices. The American Mathematical Monthly, 70(1):12--17, 1963.
[23]
S. W. Golomb and L. D. Baumert. Backtrack programming. Journal of the ACM, 12(4):516--524, 1965.
[24]
T. Hales, M. Adams, G. Bauer, T. D. Dang, J. Harrison, H. Le Truong, C. Kaliszyk, V. Magron, S. McLaughlin, T. T. Nguyen, et al. A formal proof of the Kepler conjecture. In Forum of Mathematics, Pi, volume 5. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[25]
T. C. Hales and S. P. Ferguson. The Kepler Conjecture: The Hales-Ferguson Proof. Springer New York, 2011.
[26]
M. J. H. Heule. Schur number five. In S. A. McIlraith and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18), pages 6598--6606. AAAI Press, 2018.
[27]
M. J. H. Heule, M. Kauers, and M. Seidl. New ways to multiply 3 × 3-matrices. arXiv 1905.10192, 2019.
[28]
M. J. H. Heule, O. Kullmann, and V. W. Marek. Solving very hard problems: Cube-and-conquer, a hybrid SAT solving method. In C. Sierra, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 4864--4868. 2017.
[29]
B. Konev and A. Lisitsa. Computer-aided proof of Erdős discrepancy properties. Artificial Intelligence, 224:103--118, 2015.
[30]
I. S. Kotsireas and C. Koukouvinos. Constructions for Hadamard matrices of Williamson type. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 59:17--32, 2006.
[31]
G. Kreweras. Matchings and Hamiltonian cycles on hypercubes. Bulletin of the Institute of Combinatorics and its Applications, 16:87--91, 1996.
[32]
J. D. Laderman. A noncommutative algorithm for multiplying 3×3 matrices using 23 multiplications. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 82(1):126--128, 1976.
[33]
W. H. Mills, D. P. Robbins, and H. Rumsey Jr. Alternating sign matrices and descending plane partitions. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 34(3):340--359, 1983.
[34]
A. M. Odlyzko and H. J. J. te Riele. Disproof of the Mertens conjecture. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 357:138--160, 1985.
[35]
F. Ruskey and C. Savage. Hamilton cycles that extend transposition matchings in Cayley graphs of Sn. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 6(1):152--166, 1993.
[36]
I. Schur. Über die kongruenz xm + ym = zm (mod p). Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 25:114--116, 1917.
[37]
V. Strassen. Gaussian elimination is not optimal. Numerische mathematik, 13(4):354--356, 1969.
[38]
T. Tao. The Erdős discrepancy problem. Discrete Analysis, 1, 2016.
[39]
A. Van Gelder and I. Spence. Zero-one designs produce small hard SAT instances. In O. Strichman and S. Szeider, editors, International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pages 388--397. Springer, 2010.
[40]
M. Y. Vardi. Boolean satisfiability: Theory and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 57(3):5--5, 2014.
[41]
J. S. Wallis. Combinatorial matrices. PhD thesis, La Trobe University, 1970.
[42]
S. Winograd. On multiplication of 2 × 2 matrices. Linear algebra and its applications, 4(4):381--388, 1971.
[43]
D. Zeilberger. Proof of the alternating sign matrix conjecture. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 3(2):R13, 1996.
[44]
E. Zulkoski, C. Bright, A. Heinle, I. Kotsireas, K. Czarnecki, and V. Ganesh. Combining SAT solvers with computer algebra systems to verify combinatorial conjectures. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 58(3):313--339, 2017.
[45]
E. Zulkoski, V. Ganesh, and K. Czarnecki. MathCheck: A math assistant via a combination of computer algebra systems and SAT solvers. In A. P. Felty and A. Middeldorp, editors, CADE, volume 9195 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 607--622. Springer, 2015.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image DL Hosted proceedings
CASCON '19: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering
November 2019
421 pages

Publisher

IBM Corp.

United States

Publication History

Published: 04 November 2019

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 24 of 90 submissions, 27%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 45
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media