Skip to main content

Pool Resolution and Its Relation to Regular Resolution and DPLL with Clause Learning

  • Conference paper
Book cover Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3835))

Abstract

Pool Resolution for propositional CNF formulas is introduced. Its relationship to state-of-the-art satisfiability solvers is explained. Every regular-resolution derivation is also a pool-resolution derivation. It is shown that a certain family of formulas, called NT**(n) has polynomial sized pool-resolution refutations, whereas the shortest regular refutations have an exponential lower bound. This family is a variant of the GT(n) family analyzed by Bonet and Galesi (FOCS 1999), and the GT’n family shown to require exponential-length regular-resolution refutations by Alekhnovitch, Johannsen, Pitassi and Urquhart (STOC 2002). Thus, Pool Resolution is exponentially stronger than Regular Resolution. Roughly speaking a general-resolution derivation is a pool-resolution derivation if its directed acyclic graph (DAG) has a depth-first search tree that satisfies the regularity restriction: on any path in this tree no resolution variable is repeated. In other words, once a clause is derived at a node and used by its tree parent, its derivation is forgotten, and subsequent uses of that clause treat it as though it were an input clause. This policy is closely related to DPLL search with recording of so-called conflict clauses. Variations of DPLL plus conflict analysis currently dominate the field of high-performance satisfiability solving. The power of Pool Resolution might provide some theoretical explanation for their success.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alekhnovich, M., Johannsen, J., Pitassi, T., Urquhart, A.: An exponential separation between regular and unrestricted resolution. In: Proc. 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 448–456 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, R., Bledsoe, W.W.: A linear format for resolution with merging and a new technique for establishing completeness. Journal of the ACM 17, 525–534 (1970)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bayardo Jr., R.J., Schrag, R.C.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: Proc. AAAI, pp. 203–208 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beame, P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 319–351 (2004)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Beame, P., Pitassi, T.: Simplified and improved resolution lower bounds. In: Proc. 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow — resolution made simple. JACM 48, 149–168 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonet, M., Galesi, N.: A study of proof search algorithms for resolution and polynomial calculus. In: Proc. 40th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 422–432 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bonet, M., Galesi, N.: Optimality of size-width tradeoffs for resolution. Computational Complexity 10, 261–276 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Clegg, M., Edmonds, J., Impagliazzo, R.: Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability. In: Proc. 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 174–183 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 7, 201–215 (1960)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Dechter, R., Rish, I.: Directional resolution: the davis-putnam procedure, revisited. In: Proc. 4th Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1994), pp. 134–145. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: a fast and robust sat-solver. In: Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 142–149 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson, D.S., Trick, M.A. (eds.): Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 26. American Mathematical Society (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Krishnamurthy, B.: Short proofs for tricky formulas. Acta Informatica 22, 253–274 (1985)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee, S.J., Plaisted, D.A.: Eliminating duplication with the hyper-linking strategy. Journal of Automated Reasoning 9, 25–42 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Letz, R., Mayr, K., Goller, C.: Controlled integration of the cut rule into connection tableau calculi. Journal of Automated Reasoning 13, 297–337 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP–a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers 48, 506–521 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: 39th Design Automation Conference (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Plaisted, D.A.: (private communication) (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Plaisted, D.A.: The search efficiency of theorem proving strategies. In: Bundy, A. (ed.) CADE 1994. LNCS, vol. 814, pp. 57–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stälmarck, G.: Short resolution proofs for a sequence of tricky formulas. Acta Informatica 33, 277–280 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Slisenko, A.O., ed.: Seminars in Mathematics v. 8: Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II. Steklov Math. Inst., Leningrad, 115–125 (English trans, Plenum.) (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, H., Stickel, M.E.: Implementing the davis-putnam method. Journal of Automated Reasoning 24, 277–296 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Van Gelder, A. (2005). Pool Resolution and Its Relation to Regular Resolution and DPLL with Clause Learning. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3835. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11591191_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11591191_40

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30553-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31650-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics