from dpll to cdcl sat solvers
play

From DPLL to CDCL SAT solvers Combinatorial Problem Solving (CPS) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 23, 2023 •612 likes •1.65k views

From DPLL to CDCL SAT solvers Combinatorial Problem Solving (CPS) Albert Oliveras Enric Rodr guez-Carbonell May 17, 2019 Overview of the session Conflict Analysis Motivating example Backjumping Conflict graph Lemma

  1. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 26 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  2. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 26 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  3. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 26 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  4. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 26 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  5. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 26 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  6. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  7. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  8. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 = ⇒ p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  9. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 = ⇒ p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 = ⇒ p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  10. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 = ⇒ p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 = ⇒ p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 6 p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  11. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 = ⇒ p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 = ⇒ p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 6 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 17 p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  12. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 = ⇒ p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 = ⇒ p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 6 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 17 conflict! p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 20 ∨ p 23 p 20 ∨ p 24 p 25 4 / 56

  13. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 M p d ⇒ 11 = p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 = p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 = p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 = p 10 ∨ p 3 M p d ⇒ 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 = p 3 ∨ p 26 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 = ⇒ p 10 ∨ p 5 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 = ⇒ p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 = ⇒ p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 6 M p d 11 p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 = ⇒ p 21 ∨ p 17 conflict! p 22 ∨ p 13 p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 Let’s try to find out the causes of the conflict ■ p 20 ∨ p 23 First of all we will compute, ■ p 20 ∨ p 24 for each literal of the current decision level, p 25 the reason why it is true 4 / 56

  14. Motivating Example p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. 2. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 3. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 4. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. 7. p 3 ∨ p 26 8. p 10 ∨ p 5 9. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 10. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. 12. p 21 ∨ p 17 13. p 22 ∨ p 13 14. p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. 17. p 20 ∨ p 24 18. p 25 5 / 56

  15. Motivating Example p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. 11 Reason ⊥ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 3. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 4. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. 7. p 3 ∨ p 26 8. p 10 ∨ p 5 9. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 10. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. 12. p 21 ∨ p 17 13. p 22 ∨ p 13 14. p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. 17. p 20 ∨ p 24 18. p 25 5 / 56

  16. Motivating Example p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. 11 Reason ⊥ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 3. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 Let us take the conflicting clause p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 . 4. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 18 is true due to clause 9. Resolution gives: p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. 7. p 3 ∨ p 26 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 8. p 10 ∨ p 5 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 9. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 10. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. 12. p 21 ∨ p 17 13. p 22 ∨ p 13 14. p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. 17. p 20 ∨ p 24 18. p 25 5 / 56

  17. Motivating Example p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. 11 Reason ⊥ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 3. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 Let us take the conflicting clause p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 . 4. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 18 is true due to clause 9. Resolution gives: p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. 7. p 3 ∨ p 26 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 8. p 10 ∨ p 5 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 9. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 10. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 Now the last assigned literal that is false in the p 21 ∨ p 6 11. new clause is p 5 . 12. p 21 ∨ p 17 The reason why p 5 is false is clause 8. 13. p 22 ∨ p 13 Again, resolution: 14. p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 17. p 20 ∨ p 24 18. p 25 5 / 56

  18. Motivating Example p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. 11 Reason ⊥ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 3. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 Let us take the conflicting clause p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 . 4. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 18 is true due to clause 9. Resolution gives: p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. 7. p 3 ∨ p 26 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 8. p 10 ∨ p 5 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 9. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 10. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 Now the last assigned literal that is false in the p 21 ∨ p 6 11. new clause is p 5 . 12. p 21 ∨ p 17 The reason why p 5 is false is clause 8. 13. p 22 ∨ p 13 Again, resolution: 14. p 13 ∨ p 8 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 17. p 20 ∨ p 24 18. p 25 The process is now iterated... 5 / 56

  19. Motivating Example p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 3 ∨ p 26 7. 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  20. Motivating Example p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  21. Motivating Example p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  22. Motivating Example p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 11 3. ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  23. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  24. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  25. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  26. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 21 ∨ p 6 p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 4 ∨ p 19 p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 6 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  27. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 6 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. Now the process cannot continue any longer. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  28. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 6 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. All obtained clauses are false in the assignment. p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  29. Motivating Example M is p 25 p d 21 p 6 p 17 p d 22 p 13 p 8 p d 4 p 19 p d 20 p 23 p d Literal p 12 p 16 p 2 p 10 p 1 p 3 p 26 p 5 p 18 11 ∅ Reason 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 1. p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 2. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 3. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 p 10 ∨ p 5 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 4. p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 5. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 3 6. p 3 ∨ p 26 7. p 19 ∨ p 1 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 p 10 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 1 p 10 ∨ p 5 8. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 10 p 1 ∨ p 3 ∨ p 5 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 18 9. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 12 ∨ p 16 ∨ p 2 p 3 ∨ p 19 ∨ p 18 10. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 21 ∨ p 6 11. p 21 ∨ p 17 12. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 16 p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 16 p 22 ∨ p 13 13. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 12 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 p 11 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 12 p 13 ∨ p 8 14. p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 6 p 4 ∨ p 19 15. p 20 ∨ p 23 16. Lits assigned at last decision level 5 in blue p 20 ∨ p 24 17. 18. p 25 6 / 56

  30. Motivating Example Three clauses with only one literal assigned at the last DL (5): ■ p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 10 ∨ p 8 (max DL of others: 3) ◆ p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 (max DL of others: 4) ◆ p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 ∨ p 6 (max DL of others: 4) ◆ If we had had those clauses: ■ At DL. 3 we could’ve propagated p 10 ◆ At DL. 4 we could’ve propagated p 2 ◆ At DL. 4 we could’ve propagated p 11 ◆ In practice procedure stops when we find the first such clause, because: ■ It is the cheapest one to find ◆ It can propagate lits at a lower DL ◆ (literals of previous decision levels are never removed) 7 / 56

  31. Backjump rule This example motivates us to introduce the rule:  for some clause C ∨ l ′ :   = C ∨ l ′ and M |  F | = ¬ C ⇒ M l ′ | Backjump M l d N | | F = | F if l ′ is undefined in M   l ′ or ¬ l ′ occurs in F  The only thing we need is a backjump clause C ∨ l ′ such that: 1. It is a logical consequence of the rest of the clauses 2. All its literals are false at some previous decision level d , except one which was undefined at d 8 / 56

  32. Conflict Analysis The procedure shown in the example is called conflict analysis ■ Why is the obtained clause a logical consequence of the input? ■ Because resolution is correct ◆ 9 / 56

  33. Conflict Analysis The procedure shown in the example is called conflict analysis ■ Why is the obtained clause false under the current assignment? ■ Conflicting clause is false under the current assignment ◆ Each non-decision lit l false at the last decision level ( dl ) ◆ can be resolved away with a reason clause of the form l 1 ∨ · · · ∨ l n ∨ ¬ l l is replaced by lits l 1 , . . . , l n such that all of them are false ◆ 10 / 56

  34. Conflict Analysis The procedure shown in the example is called conflict analysis ■ Why a clause with only one lit at last decision level ( dl ) can be obtained? ■ Conflicting clause has at least two lits at decision level dl ◆ (provided unit propagation applied before any decision) Each non-decision lit l at decision level dl is replaced by lits l 1 , . . . , l n ◆ such that 1. All of them have been added to the assignment before l (hence their decision level is ≤ dl ) 2. At least one was set at decision level dl (again, provided ....) In the worst case, we will terminate with ◆ a clause with the last decision lit being the only set at decision level dl 11 / 56

  35. Conflict Analysis - Conflict Graph Situation can be represented with the conflict graph: ■ p 17 p p p 6 20 p 19 8 p p p p 4 18 12 1 p p p ⊥ 2 10 11 p p p 16 5 3 p 13 12 / 56

  36. Conflict Analysis - Conflict Graph The cut represents 1-UIP learning scheme (UIP ≡ Unique Implication Point) ■ p 17 p p p 6 20 p 19 8 p p p p 4 18 12 1 p p p ⊥ 2 10 11 1UIP p p p 16 5 3 p 13 Backjump clause is p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 10 ■ 13 / 56

  37. Conflict Analysis - Conflict Graph This cut represents the 2-UIP learning scheme ■ p 17 p p p 6 20 p 19 8 p p p p 4 18 12 1 p p p ⊥ 2 10 11 2UIP p p p 16 5 3 p 13 Backjump clause is p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 2 ■ 14 / 56

  38. Conflict Analysis - Conflict Graph This cut represents the 3-UIP learning scheme ■ p 17 p p p 6 20 p 19 8 p p p p 4 18 12 1 p p p ⊥ 2 10 11 3UIP p p p 16 5 3 p 13 Backjump clause is p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 20 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 11 ∨ p 13 ■ 15 / 56

  39. What is a good lemma? Every time a conflict is found, conflict analysis is started ■ Backjump clause is added to the clause database (we say it is learned): ■ Learn � all atoms of C occur in F M | | F = ⇒ M | | F, C if F | = C Backjump clauses once they are learned are referred to as lemmas ■ Learning them helps to prevent future similar conflicts ■ The set of literals of previous DL in the 2UIP ■ contains the literals of previous DL in the 1UIP So 1UIP gives shorter clauses than 2UIP ■ Also 1UIP allows one to backjump to a lower or equal DL ■ However, in general difficult to assess in advance the quality of a lemma ■ 16 / 56

  40. Lemma Shortening But, given a lemma L , any lemma L ′ ⊆ L is clearly better. ■ Given L , how to obtain a possible L ′ ? ■ LOCAL MINIMIZATION: ■ Generate lemma L and mark its literals ◆ Remove non-decision literals l ∈ L such that ◆ reason ( l ) \ { l } contains only marked literals EXAMPLE: our 2-UIP clause was p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 with reason ( p 19 ) = p 4 ∨ p 19 . Hence p 19 can be removed. Why? 17 / 56

  41. Lemma Shortening But, given a lemma L , any lemma L ′ ⊆ L is clearly better. ■ Given L , how to obtain a possible L ′ ? ■ LOCAL MINIMIZATION: ■ Generate lemma L and mark its literals ◆ Remove non-decision literals l ∈ L such that ◆ reason ( l ) \ { l } contains only marked literals EXAMPLE: our 2-UIP clause was p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 with reason ( p 19 ) = p 4 ∨ p 19 . Hence p 19 can be removed. Why? p 19 ∨ p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 p 4 ∨ p 19 p 17 ∨ p 8 ∨ p 2 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 20 17 / 56

  42. Lemma Shortening RECURSIVE MINIMIZATION: ■ Generate lemma L and mark its literals ◆ Remove non-decision literals l ∈ L such that search backwards from l ◆ in the implication graph reaches only negations of marked literals p 4 p 1. p 1 ∨ p 2 p 5 p 1 ∨ p 6 2. 2 3. p 2 ∨ p 6 ∨ p 3 p ⊥ p p 1 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 5 1 4. 3 5. p 3 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 5 p 6 ⇒ p 1 d p 2 p 6 p 3 p 4 d p 5 ∅ = ⇒ . . . = 1UIP lemma is p 3 ∨ p 4 ∨ p 1 ■ p 3 is clearly removable ■ 18 / 56

  43. Overview of the session Conflict Analysis ■ Motivating example ◆ Backjumping ◆ Conflict graph ◆ Lemma shortening ◆ Lemma removal ■ Decision heuristics ■ Restarts ■ Efficient implementation of UnitProp : ■ Occur lists ◆ Two-watched literals ◆ Final remarks ■ 18 / 56

  44. Lemma Removal Effects of adding lemmas: ■ + Reduces the search space - Space traversal slower since unit propagation becomes expensive Hence we cannot keep all generated lemmas. We need: ■ Forget F | M | | F, C = ⇒ M | | F if = C Which lemmas to keep and which ones to forget? ■ Each lemma has a number called activity ◆ Activity is incremented when lemma is used in conflict analysis ◆ From time to time, lemmas with low activity are removed ◆ Mixed policies: keep ◆ short lemmas ■ recent lemmas ■ lemmas with low Literals Blocks Distance (LDB): ■ no. of different decision levels involved in a clause 19 / 56

  45. Overview of the session Conflict Analysis ■ Motivating example ◆ Backjumping ◆ Conflict graph ◆ Lemma shortening ◆ Lemma removal ■ Decision heuristics ■ Restarts ■ Efficient implementation of UnitProp : ■ Occur lists ◆ Two-watched literals ◆ Final remarks ■ 19 / 56

  46. Decision Heuristic SAT instances may have (tens, hundreds of ?) thousands of variables ■ Most SAT instances have clusters of variables: ■ sets of variables that are semantically linked GOAL: to force the SAT solver to work on one cluster at a time Each variable has an associated activity ■ Each time it appears in a conflict analysis, its activity is incremented ■ Recent activity should be given more importance: ■ Divide all activities by integer K from time to time, or ◆ Keep increasing the activity increment ◆ Decide chooses unassigned var with highest activity ■ Note that heuristic does not depend on clauses: CHEAP! ■ Value selection: take false , or last tried value for that variable (last phase) ■ 20 / 56

  47. Overview of the session Conflict Analysis ■ Motivating example ◆ Backjumping ◆ Conflict graph ◆ Lemma shortening ◆ Lemma removal ■ Decision heuristics ■ Restarts ■ Efficient implementation of UnitProp : ■ Occur lists ◆ Two-watched literals ◆ Final remarks ■ 20 / 56

  48. Restarts Early mistakes in the search tree have dramatic effects in running time ■ HOW TO AVOID THIS BEHAVIOUR? Introduce restarts: ■ Restart M | | F = ⇒ ∅ | | F Why should a new run behave differently? And why could it be better? ■ In a new run, the solver may behave better among others thanks to: ■ the activities of the variables ◆ the learned lemmas ◆ Only the assignment is reset! 21 / 56

  49. Restarts - Strategies Unrestricted application of Restart leads to incompleteness ■ What is done in practice? ■ A restart strategy tells after how many conflicts a restart should be made ■ Set initial RESTART LIMIT ◆ After RESTART LIMIT conflicts: ◆ Update RESTART LIMIT according to the restart strategy ■ Apply Restart ■ For example: ■ Let RESTART LIMIT follow the Luby sequence, defined as: ◆ r 0 := N ; r i := N · l i , where ■ � 2 k − 1 if ∃ k with i = 2 k − 1 l i = if ∃ k with 2 k − 1 ≤ i < 2 k − 1 l i − 2 k − 1 +1 22 / 56

  50. Restarts - Strategies Luby-based restart sequence with initial 512 18000 16000 14000 RESTART LIMIT 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 23 / 56

  51. Restarts - Strategies Another possibility is an inner-outer geometric sequence: for (int inner = 100, outer = 100;;) { // Run SAT-solver for ’inner’ conflicts if (inner >= outer) { outer *= 1.1; inner = 100; } else inner *= 1.1 } 24 / 56

  52. Restarts - Strategies Inner-outer geometric sequence 1800 1600 1400 RESTART LIMIT 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 25 / 56

  53. Overall CDCL algorithm while(true) { while (propagate gives conflict()) { if (decision level==0) return UNSAT; else analyze conflict(); } restart if applicable(); remove lemmas if applicable(); if (!decide()) returns SAT; // All vars assigned } 26 / 56

  54. Overview of the session Conflict Analysis ■ Motivating example ◆ Backjumping ◆ Conflict graph ◆ Lemma shortening ◆ Lemma removal ■ Decision heuristics ■ Restarts ■ Efficient implementation of UnitProp : ■ Occur lists ◆ Two-watched literals ◆ Final remarks ■ 26 / 56

  55. Performance of SAT Solvers The most important tasks that a SAT solver performs are: ■ Choose which variable to Decide on ◆ Apply unit propagation exhaustively ◆ Analyze conflicts ◆ When profiling a state-of-the art SAT solver we get: ■ Variable selection ( ≈ 10%) ◆ Unit propagation application ( ≈ 80%) ◆ Conflict analysis ( ≈ 10%) ◆ Hence, the most important thing to optimize is ■ unit propagation, aka BCP (Boolean Constraint Propagation) 27 / 56

  56. BCP with Occur Lists BCP only has to detect propagating or conflicting clauses ■ There is no need to detect that all clauses are true ■ Instead of traversing the whole clause set again and again: ■ For each literal, store the clauses where it appears in occur lists ◆ Every time a new lit l is added to the assignment, ◆ only clauses containing l need to be visited Let’s see how it would work with an example ■ 28 / 56

  57. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p U U U U U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 Current assignment: ∅ 29 / 56

  58. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p U F U U U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 2 6 6 d Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 2 visiting ClausesWith[ p 2 ] 30 / 56

  59. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p U F U U U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 d Current assignment: p 2 Literal p 1 has to be added to the assignment 31 / 56

  60. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U U U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 1 6 6 d p 1 Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 1 visiting ClausesWith[ p 1 ] 32 / 56

  61. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U U U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 d p 1 Current assignment: p 2 No lit is propagated, we have to decide 33 / 56

  62. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U F U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 4 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 4 visiting ClausesWith[ p 4 ] 34 / 56

  63. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U F U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d Current assignment: p 2 Literals p 6 , p 5 have to be added to the assignment 35 / 56

  64. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U F F T 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 6 p 5 Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 5 visiting ClausesWith[ p 5 ] 36 / 56

  65. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U F F T 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 6 p 5 Current assignment: p 2 Literal p 3 has to be added to the assignment 37 / 56

  66. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F F F F T 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p p 2 6 p p 4 p 3 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 6 p 5 p 3 Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 3 visiting ClausesWith[ p 3 ] 38 / 56

  67. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F F F F T 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 6 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 6 p 5 p 3 Current assignment: p 2 Clause 5 indicates a conflict. Backtrack/backjump is called. 39 / 56

  68. BCP with Occur Lists p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p 2 p T F U T U U 1 1 6 p p 3 p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWith 2 1 6 p 6 p 2 p p p 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 p p 2 3 4 6 1 p p 2 2 4 p p 1 2 5 2 3 3 p p p p p 3 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p p 4 p 5 5 6 p p p 5 2 3 1 2 5 4 6 6 d p 1 p 4 Current assignment: p 2 Procedure continues propagating p 4 40 / 56

  69. BCP - How to improve it? The key observation is the following: ■ A clause with 2 non-false literals can’t be propagating or conflicting For each clause we will try to watch two non-false literals ■ Enough to visit a clause when a watched literal becomes false ■ If 2 non-false literals do not exist, this is because: ■ All the lits are false (then backtrack) ◆ All the lits are false but one, which is undef (then propagate) ◆ All the lits are false but one, which is true ◆ This is called the two watched literals scheme ■ 41 / 56

  70. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p U U U U U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 5 3 1 1 2 4 p p 2 3 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 3 3 p p p p p 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p 4 2 3 5 6 6 Current assignment: ∅ 42 / 56

  71. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p U F U U U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 5 3 1 1 2 4 p p 2 3 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 3 3 p p p p p 6 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 2 6 6 d Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 2 visiting ClausesWithLitWatched[ p 2 ] 43 / 56

  72. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p U F U U U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 5 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p 4 2 3 5 6 6 d Current assignment: p 2 Clauses 2 and 3 are rewatched. Clause 4 can’t because it is unit ( p 1 ) 44 / 56

  73. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U U U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 5 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 1 6 6 d p 1 Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 1 visiting ClausesWithLitWatched[ p 1 ] 45 / 56

  74. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U U U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p 4 2 3 5 6 6 d p 1 Current assignment: p 2 Clauses 5 is reselected. No lit is unit propagated. We have to decide. 46 / 56

  75. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U F U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 4 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 4 visiting ClausesWithLitWatched[ p 4 ] 47 / 56

  76. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U F U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p 4 2 3 5 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d Current assignment: p 2 Clause 6 unit propagates p 5 and clause 3 propagates p 6 . 48 / 56

  77. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U F F T 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p p 2 6 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 5 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 5 p 6 Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 6 visiting ClausesWithLitWatched[ p 6 ] 49 / 56

  78. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U F F T 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 5 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 5 p 6 Current assignment: p 2 Clause 5 can’t be reselected because it is unit ( p 3 ). 50 / 56

  79. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F T F F T 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p p 2 6 p 5 p p 3 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 5 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 5 p 6 p 3 Current assignment: p 2 Now, we propagate p 3 visiting ClausesWithLitWatched[ p 3 ] 51 / 56

  80. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F T F F T 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p p 4 2 3 5 5 6 6 d p 1 p 4 d p 5 p 6 p 3 Current assignment: p 2 Clause 2 indicates a conflict. Backjump/backtrack is called. 52 / 56

  81. BCP - Two Watched Literals p p p p p p 1 2 3 4 5 6 Model p p p T F U U U U 1 1 2 6 p 2 p p 5 p p 2 ToPropagate ClausesWithLitWatched 3 1 6 p 6 p p p p 1 4 3 1 1 2 4 p p 4 1 p 1 p 2 2 4 p p 2 2 5 3 3 p p p p p 6 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 p p 2 6 p 5 p p 5 5 6 p p 4 2 3 5 6 6 d p 1 (lit p 4 not yet added) Current assignment: p 2 After backtrack watches are properly placed! 53 / 56

  82. Two watched literals - Analysis Each clause is visited far less often ■ Upon backtrack, nothing has to be done ■ Inactive literals tend to be watched, hence further reducing the number of ■ clauses to be visited Very effective for long clauses (e.g. lemmas) ■ 54 / 56

  83. Overview of the session Conflict Analysis ■ Motivating example ◆ Backjumping ◆ Conflict graph ◆ Lemma shortening ◆ Lemma removal ■ Decision heuristics ■ Restarts ■ Efficient implementation of UnitProp : ■ Occur lists ◆ Two-watched literals ◆ Final remarks ■ 54 / 56

Recommend

Pluggable SAT-Solvers for SMT-Solvers Bas Schaafsma DISI, University of Trento &amp; Fondazione

Pluggable SAT-Solvers for SMT-Solvers Bas Schaafsma DISI, University of Trento &amp; Fondazione

Introduction The DPLL and DPLL( T ) algorithms Architecture &amp; Implementation Experimental Evaluation Demo Conclusion &amp; Future Work Pluggable SAT-Solvers for SMT-Solvers Bas Schaafsma DISI, University of Trento &amp; Fondazione Bruno

516 views • 28 slides
CoPAn - Exploring recurring patterns in conflict analysis of CDCL SAT-Solvers (Tool Presentation)

CoPAn - Exploring recurring patterns in conflict analysis of CDCL SAT-Solvers (Tool Presentation)

CoPAn - Exploring recurring patterns in conflict analysis of CDCL SAT-Solvers (Tool Presentation) Stephan Kottler, Christian Zielke, Paul Seitz and Michael Kaufmann Algorithmics Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Tbingen

562 views • 41 slides
CDCL SAT Solvers &amp; SAT-Based Problem Solving Joao Marques-Silva 1 , 2 &amp; Mikolas Janota 2 1

CDCL SAT Solvers &amp; SAT-Based Problem Solving Joao Marques-Silva 1 , 2 &amp; Mikolas Janota 2 1

CDCL SAT Solvers &amp; SAT-Based Problem Solving Joao Marques-Silva 1 , 2 &amp; Mikolas Janota 2 1 University College Dublin, Ireland 2 IST/INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal SAT/SMT Summer School 2013 Aalto University, Espoo, Finland The Success of SAT

670 views • 33 slides
Modern CDCL SAT Solvers SAT / SMT Summer School 12. June 2012 Fondazione Bruno Kessler Trento,

Modern CDCL SAT Solvers SAT / SMT Summer School 12. June 2012 Fondazione Bruno Kessler Trento,

Modern CDCL SAT Solvers SAT / SMT Summer School 12. June 2012 Fondazione Bruno Kessler Trento, Italy Armin Biere Institute for Formal Models and Verification Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria

992 views • 83 slides
CDCL SAT Solvers Joao Marques-Silva INESC-ID, IST, ULisbon, Portugal Theory and Practice of SAT

CDCL SAT Solvers Joao Marques-Silva INESC-ID, IST, ULisbon, Portugal Theory and Practice of SAT

CDCL SAT Solvers Joao Marques-Silva INESC-ID, IST, ULisbon, Portugal Theory and Practice of SAT Solving Dagstuhl Workshop April 2015 The Success of SAT Well-known NP-complete decision problem [C71] The Success of SAT Well-known

1.75k views • 138 slides
Cube and Conquer Guiding CDCL SAT Solvers by Lookaheads Marijn Heule 1 , 2 , Oliver Kullmann 3 ,

Cube and Conquer Guiding CDCL SAT Solvers by Lookaheads Marijn Heule 1 , 2 , Oliver Kullmann 3 ,

Cube and Conquer Guiding CDCL SAT Solvers by Lookaheads Marijn Heule 1 , 2 , Oliver Kullmann 3 , Siert Wieringa 4 and Armin Biere 1 1 Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria 2 Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands 3 Swansea

410 views • 28 slides
Extending DPLL-Based QBF Solvers to Handle Free Variables Will Klieber , Mikol a s Janota,

Extending DPLL-Based QBF Solvers to Handle Free Variables Will Klieber , Mikol a s Janota,

Extending DPLL-Based QBF Solvers to Handle Free Variables Will Klieber , Mikol a s Janota, Joao Marques-Silva, Edmund Clarke July 9, 2013 1 Open QBF Closed QBF: All variables quantified; answer is True or False. Open QBF: Contains

472 views • 46 slides
SAT Solvers Aditya Parameswaran Luv Kumar 1st June, 2005 and 14th June, 2005 Aditya

SAT Solvers Aditya Parameswaran Luv Kumar 1st June, 2005 and 14th June, 2005 Aditya

IIT Bombay - CFDVS SAT Solvers Aditya Parameswaran Luv Kumar 1st June, 2005 and 14th June, 2005 Aditya Parameswaran, Luv Kumar: SAT Solvers, 1 Outline Outline The Satisfiability Problem Types of Solvers The basic DPLL

521 views • 30 slides
Introduction DPLL(+ T ) as a transition system Completeness: variable-inactivity, iterative

Introduction DPLL(+ T ) as a transition system Completeness: variable-inactivity, iterative

Outline Introduction DPLL( + T ) as a transition system Completeness: variable-inactivity, iterative deepening Decision procedures by DPLL( + T ) with speculative inferences The theorem-proving method DPLL(+ T ) 1 Maria Paola Bonacina

943 views • 77 slides
Abstract DPLL and Abstract DPLL Modulo Theories Robert Nieuwenhuis 1 , Albert Oliveras 1 , and

Abstract DPLL and Abstract DPLL Modulo Theories Robert Nieuwenhuis 1 , Albert Oliveras 1 , and

Abstract DPLL and Abstract DPLL Modulo Theories Robert Nieuwenhuis 1 , Albert Oliveras 1 , and Cesare Tinelli 2 1 Technical University of Catalonia 2 The University of Iowa Abstract DPLL and Abstract DPLL Modulo Theories p.1/24 Overview of

842 views • 29 slides
The DPLL algorithm Combinatorial Problem Solving (CPS) Albert Oliveras Enric Rodr

The DPLL algorithm Combinatorial Problem Solving (CPS) Albert Oliveras Enric Rodr

The DPLL algorithm Combinatorial Problem Solving (CPS) Albert Oliveras Enric Rodr guez-Carbonell May 22, 2020 Overview of the session Designing an efficient SAT solver DPLL: A Bit of History Abstract DPLL: Rules

916 views • 42 slides
Extending an Isabelle Formalisation of CDCL to Optimising CDCL Mathias Fleury joint work

Extending an Isabelle Formalisation of CDCL to Optimising CDCL Mathias Fleury joint work

Extending an Isabelle Formalisation of CDCL to Optimising CDCL Mathias Fleury joint work with Christoph Weidenbach Matryoshka+Veridis 2019 Lets find a model with minimal weight 10 4 20 13 Optimal partial model: Optimal

593 views • 27 slides
31.1 Motivation 29. Basics 30. Reasoning and Resolution 31. DPLL Algorithm 32.

31.1 Motivation 29. Basics 30. Reasoning and Resolution 31. DPLL Algorithm 32.

Foundations of Artificial Intelligence April 22, 2020 31. Propositional Logic: DPLL Algorithm Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 31.1 Motivation 31. Propositional Logic: DPLL Algorithm 31.2 Systematic Search: DPLL Malte Helmert and

286 views • 6 slides
Mini-tutorial on conflict-driven clause learning solvers Marijn J. H. Heule The University of

Mini-tutorial on conflict-driven clause learning solvers Marijn J. H. Heule The University of

Mini-tutorial on conflict-driven clause learning solvers Marijn J. H. Heule The University of Texas at Austin 20/01/2014 @ BIRS Marijn J. H. Heule (UT) Mini-tutorial on CDCL solvers BIRS, January 2014 1 / 24 The Satisfiability (SAT) problem

1.13k views • 59 slides
Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 31. Propositional Logic: DPLL Algorithm Martin Wehrle

Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 31. Propositional Logic: DPLL Algorithm Martin Wehrle

Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 31. Propositional Logic: DPLL Algorithm Martin Wehrle Universit at Basel April 25, 2016 Motivation Systematic Search: DPLL DPLL on Horn Formulas Summary Propositional Logic: Overview Chapter

613 views • 35 slides
Model-based reasoning DPLL(+ T ): algorithmic reasoner + first-order prover DPLL(+ T ) +

Model-based reasoning DPLL(+ T ): algorithmic reasoner + first-order prover DPLL(+ T ) +

Outline Model-based reasoning DPLL( + T ): algorithmic reasoner + first-order prover DPLL( + T ) + speculative inferences: Decision procedures Current and future work On Model-Based Reasoning 1 Recent Trends and Current Developments Maria

698 views • 43 slides
A CDCL(LA) Solver SPASS-SATT A CDCL(LA) Solver Translation: fun (=SPASS) sated (=SATT)

A CDCL(LA) Solver SPASS-SATT A CDCL(LA) Solver Translation: fun (=SPASS) sated (=SATT)

SPASS-SATT A CDCL(LA) Solver SPASS-SATT A CDCL(LA) Solver Translation: fun (=SPASS) sated (=SATT) SPASS-SATT A CDCL(LA) Solver Translation: fun (=SPASS) sated (=SATT) being sick/tired of having fun Quantifier-Free Linear Arithmetic

1.4k views • 129 slides
Introduction to SAT and SMT Solvers Interfacing Yosys and SMT Solvers for BMC and more using

Introduction to SAT and SMT Solvers Interfacing Yosys and SMT Solvers for BMC and more using

Introduction to SAT and SMT Solvers Interfacing Yosys and SMT Solvers for BMC and more using SMT-LIB 2.5 Clifford Wolf 1 Abstract Bounded model checking and other SAT-based formal methods are an important part of todays digital design

773 views • 52 slides
Handling Pseudo-Boolean constraints in a CDCL solver a practical survey Daniel Le Berre CNRS,

Handling Pseudo-Boolean constraints in a CDCL solver a practical survey Daniel Le Berre CNRS,

Handling Pseudo-Boolean constraints in a CDCL solver a practical survey Daniel Le Berre CNRS, Universit e dArtois, FRANCE { leberre } @cril.univ-artois.fr Dagstuhl seminar 15171 - April 20, 2015 1/44 Motivation CDCL proof system is

812 views • 58 slides
Satisfiability Modulo Theories SMT solvers are finding their way in many different application

Satisfiability Modulo Theories SMT solvers are finding their way in many different application

Applications of SMT solvers Alessandro Cimatti Embedded System Unit Fondazione Bruno Kessler Trento, Italy cimatti@fbk.eu Applications of SMT solvers @ SAT/SMT School, Helsinki, July 2013 Satisfiability Modulo Theories SMT solvers are

1.09k views • 27 slides
Motivation SMT Theories of Interest History of SMT Eager approach Lazy approach Optimizations

Motivation SMT Theories of Interest History of SMT Eager approach Lazy approach Optimizations

SMT Theory and DPLL( T ) Albert Oliveras Technical University of Catalonia (BarcelonaTech) Third International SAT/SMT Solver Summer School 2013 Aalto University, Finland July 4th, 2013 SMT Theory and DPLL( T ) p. 1 Overview of the talk

1.43k views • 112 slides
SMT Solvers: A Disruptive Technology John Rushby Computer Science Laboratory SRI International

SMT Solvers: A Disruptive Technology John Rushby Computer Science Laboratory SRI International

SMT Solvers: A Disruptive Technology John Rushby Computer Science Laboratory SRI International Menlo Park, California, USA John Rushby, SR I SMT Solvers: 1 SMT Solvers SMT stands for Satisfiability Modulo Theories SMT solvers

770 views • 39 slides
OpenFOAMs basic solvers for linear systems of equations Solvers, preconditioners, smoothers

OpenFOAMs basic solvers for linear systems of equations Solvers, preconditioners, smoothers

Tim Behrens OpenFOAMs basic solvers for linear systems of equations Solvers, preconditioners, smoothers Linear Solvers in OpenFOAM 1 Tim Behrens What are we going to do? Look at the structure of lduMatrix Compare DIC/FDIC

496 views • 14 slides
SAT and SMT Murphy Berzish Overview Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem SAT solvers:

SAT and SMT Murphy Berzish Overview Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem SAT solvers:

SAT and SMT Murphy Berzish Overview Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem SAT solvers: basic algorithms, enhancements Limitations of SAT SMT solvers: overview Examples of SMT solvers (implementations) Practical applications

929 views • 43 slides

More recommend