More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Deciding Effectively Propositional Logic Using DPLL and Substitution Sets

Authors:

Leonardo Moura,

Nikolaj BjørnerAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of Automated Reasoning, Volume 44, Issue 4

Pages 401 - 424

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-009-9161-6

Published: 01 April 2010 Publication History

Abstract

We introduce a DPLL calculus that is a decision procedure for the Bernays-Schönfinkel class, also known as EPR. Our calculus allows combining techniques for efficient propositional search with data-structures, such as Binary Decision Diagrams, that can efficiently and succinctly encode finite sets of substitutions and operations on these. In the calculus, clauses comprise of a sequence of literals together with a finite set of substitutions; truth assignments are also represented using substitution sets. The calculus works directly at the level of sets, and admits performing simultaneous constraint propagation and decisions, resulting in potentially exponential speedups over existing approaches.

References

[1]

Andersen, H.R., Hulgaard, H.: Boolean expression diagrams. Inf. Comput. 179(2), 194-212 (2002).

Digital Library

[2]

Baumgartner, P.: Logical engineering with instance-based methods. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) Automated Deduction--CADE-21, 21st International Conference on Automated Deduction, Bremen, Germany, 17-20 July, 2007, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4603, pp. 404-409. Springer (2007).

[3]

Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., Tinelli, C.: Implementing the model evolution calculus. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 15(1), 21-52 (2006).

[4]

Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., Tinelli, C.: Lemma learning in the model evolution calculus. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4246, pp. 572-586. Springer, New York (2006).

[5]

Baumgartner, P., Tinelli, C.: The model evolution calculus as a first-order DPLL method. Artif. Intell. 172(4-5), 591-632 (2008).

Digital Library

[6]

Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-35(8), 677-691 (1986).

Digital Library

[7]

Claessen, K., Sörensson, N.: New techniques that improve mace-style finite model finding. In: CADE-19 Workshop: Model Computation--Principles, Algorithms, Applications (2003).

[8]

de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Deciding effectively propositional logic using DPLL and substitution sets. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008 (2008).

[9]

de Nivelle, H., Meng, J.: Geometric resolution: a proof procedure based on finite model search. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4130, pp. 303-317. Springer, New York (2006).

[10]

Dershowitz, N., Hanna, Z., Katz, J.: Bounded model checking with QBF. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3569, pp. 408-414. Springer, New York (2005).

[11]

Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible sat-solver. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pp. 502-518 (2003).

[12]

Fermüller, C.G., Leitsch, A., Hustadt, U., Tammet, T.: Resolution decision procedures. In: Robinson, J.A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, pp. 1791-1849. Elsevier and MIT, Amsterdam (2001).

[13]

Gallo, G., Rago, G.: The satisfiability problem for the Schönfinkel-Bernays fragment: partial instantiation and hypergraph algorithms. Technical report 4/94, Dip. Informatica, Universit'a di Pisa (1994).

[14]

Ganzinger, H., Korovin, K.: New directions in instantiation-based theorem proving. In: LICS, pp. 55-64. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003).

Digital Library

[15]

Krstic, S., Goel, A.: Architecting solvers for SAT modulo theories: Nelson-Oppen with DPLL. In: Konev, B., Wolter, F. (eds.) FroCos. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4720, pp. 1-27. Springer, New York (2007).

[16]

Lewis, H.R.: Complexity results for classes of quantificational formulas. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 21(3), 317-353 (1980).

[17]

Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: from an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM 53(6), 937-977 (2006).

Digital Library

[18]

Pérez, J.A.N., Voronkov, A.: Encodings of bounded LTL model checking in effectively propositional logic. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) Automated Deduction--CADE-21, 21st International Conference on Automated Deduction, Bremen, Germany, 17-20 July, 2007, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4603, pp. 346-361. Springer, New York (2007).

[19]

Pérez, J.A.N., Voronkov, A.: Proof systems for effectively propositional logic. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008 (2008).

[20]

Piskac, R., de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Deciding effectively propositional logic with equality. Technical report MSR-2008-161, Microsoft Research (2008).

[21]

Tammet, T., Kadarpik, V.: Combining an inference engine with database: a rule server. In: Schroeder, M., Wagner, G. (eds.) RuleML. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2876, pp. 136-149. Springer, New York (2003).

[22]

Voronkov, A.: Merging relational database technology with constraint technology. In: Bjørner, D., Broy, M., Pottosin, I.V. (eds.) Ershov Memorial Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1181, pp. 409-419. Springer, New York (1996).

[23]

Whaley, J., Avots, D., Carbin, M., Lam, M.S.: Using datalog with binary decision diagrams for program analysis. In: Yi, K. (ed.) APLAS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3780, pp. 97-118. Springer, New York (2005).

Digital Library

Cited By

Lattuada AHance TBosamiya JBrun MCho CLeBlanc HSrinivasan PAchermann RChajed THawblitzel CHowell JLorch JPadon OParno BWitchel EArpaci-Dusseau ARossbach CKeeton K(2024)Verus: A Practical Foundation for Systems VerificationProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 30th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles10.1145/3694715.3695952(438-454)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3694715.3695952
Zhao QPîrlea GGrzeszkiewicz KGilbert SSergey ILuo BLiao XXu JKirda ELie D(2024)Compositional Verification of Composite Byzantine ProtocolsProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3658644.3690355(34-48)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658644.3690355
Guilloud SKunčak V(2024)Orthologic with AxiomsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36328818:POPL(1150-1178)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632881
Show More Cited By

Deciding Effectively Propositional Logic Using DPLL and Substitution Sets
1. Theory of computation

Recommendations

Extracting a DPLL Algorithm

We formalize a completeness proof for the DPLL proof system and extract a DPLL SAT solver from it. When applied to a propositional formula in conjunctive normal form the program produces either a satisfying assignment or a DPLL derivation which shows ...
Deciding Effectively Propositional Logic Using DPLL and Substitution Sets
IJCAR '08: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on Automated Reasoning

We introduce a DPLL calculus that is a decision procedure for the Bernays-Schönfinkel class, also known as EPR. Our calculus allows combining techniques for efficient propositional search with data-structures, such as Binary Decision Diagrams, that can ...
Efficient SAT solving for non-clausal formulas using DPLL, graphs, and watched cuts
DAC '09: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Design Automation Conference

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers are used heavily in hardware and software verification tools for checking satisfiability of Boolean formulas. Most state-of-the-art SAT solvers are based on the Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland (DPLL) algorithm and ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Automated Reasoning

Journal of Automated Reasoning Volume 44, Issue 4

April 2010

120 pages

ISSN:0168-7433

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 April 2010

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

39
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Lattuada AHance TBosamiya JBrun MCho CLeBlanc HSrinivasan PAchermann RChajed THawblitzel CHowell JLorch JPadon OParno BWitchel EArpaci-Dusseau ARossbach CKeeton K(2024)Verus: A Practical Foundation for Systems VerificationProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 30th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles10.1145/3694715.3695952(438-454)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3694715.3695952
Zhao QPîrlea GGrzeszkiewicz KGilbert SSergey ILuo BLiao XXu JKirda ELie D(2024)Compositional Verification of Composite Byzantine ProtocolsProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3658644.3690355(34-48)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658644.3690355
Guilloud SKunčak V(2024)Orthologic with AxiomsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36328818:POPL(1150-1178)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632881
Wilcox JFeldman YPadon OShoham S(2024)mypyvy: A Research Platform for Verification of Transition Systems in First-Order LogicComputer Aided Verification10.1007/978-3-031-65630-9_4(71-85)Online publication date: 24-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-65630-9_4
Böltz LSofronie-Stokkermans VFrey H(2024)On the Verification of the Correctness of a Subgraph Construction AlgorithmVerification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation10.1007/978-3-031-50524-9_14(303-325)Online publication date: 15-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-50524-9_14
Schultz WDardik ITripakis SPopescu AZdancewic S(2022)Formal verification of a distributed dynamic reconfiguration protocolProceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs10.1145/3497775.3503688(143-152)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3497775.3503688
Sankaran A(2022)Feferman–Vaught Decompositions for Prefix Classes of First Order LogicJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-022-09384-932:1(147-174)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-022-09384-9
Jaber NWagner CJacobs SKulkarni MSamanta R(2021)QuickSilver: modeling and parameterized verification for distributed agreement-based systemsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34855345:OOPSLA(1-31)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485534
Viering MHu REugster PZiarek L(2021)A multiparty session typing discipline for fault-tolerant event-driven distributed programmingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34855015:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485501
Voigt M(2021)Decidable First-Order Fragments of Linear Rational Arithmetic with Uninterpreted PredicatesJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-020-09567-865:3(357-423)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10817-020-09567-8
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents