Towards Understanding and Harnessing the Potential of Clause Learning

Efficient implementations of DPLL with the addition of clause learning are the fastest complete Boolean satisfiability solvers and can handle many significant real-world problems, such as verification, planning and design. Despite its importance, little is known of the ultimate strengths and limitations of the technique. This paper presents the first precise characterization of clause learning as a proof system (CL), and begins the task of understanding its power by relating it to the well-studied resolution proof system. In particular, we show that with a new learning scheme, CL can provide exponentially shorter proofs than many proper refinements of general resolution (RES) satisfying a natural property. These include regular and Davis-Putnam resolution, which are already known to be much stronger than ordinary DPLL. We also show that a slight variant of CL with unlimited restarts is as powerful as RES itself. Translating these analytical results to practice, however, presents a challenge because of the nondeterministic nature of clause learning algorithms. We propose a novel way of exploiting the underlying problem structure, in the form of a high level problem description such as a graph or PDDL specification, to guide clause learning algorithms toward faster solutions. We show that this leads to exponential speed-ups on grid and randomized pebbling problems, as well as substantial improvements on certain ordering formulas

Efficient Certified Resolution Proof Checking

We present a novel propositional proof tracing format that eliminates complex processing, thus enabling efficient (formal) proof checking. The benefits of this format are demonstrated by implementing a proof checker in C, which outperforms a state-of-the-art checker by two orders of magnitude. We then formalize the theory underlying propositional proof checking in Coq, and extract a correct-by-construction proof checker for our format from the formalization. An empirical evaluation using 280 unsatisfiable instances from the 2015 and 2016 SAT competitions shows that this certified checker usually performs comparably to a state-of-the-art non-certified proof checker. Using this format, we formally verify the recent 200 TB proof of the Boolean Pythagorean Triples conjecture

Parameterized complexity of DPLL search procedures

We study the performance of DPLL algorithms on parameterized problems. In particular, we investigate how difficult it is to decide whether small solutions exist for satisfiability and other combinatorial problems. For this purpose we develop a Prover-Delayer game which models the running time of DPLL procedures and we establish an information-theoretic method to obtain lower bounds to the running time of parameterized DPLL procedures. We illustrate this technique by showing lower bounds to the parameterized pigeonhole principle and to the ordering principle. As our main application we study the DPLL procedure for the problem of deciding whether a graph has a small clique. We show that proving the absence of a k-clique requires n steps for a non-trivial distribution of graphs close to the critical threshold. For the restricted case of tree-like Parameterized Resolution, this result answers a question asked in [11] of understanding the Resolution complexity of this family of formulas

Towards Verifying Nonlinear Integer Arithmetic

We eliminate a key roadblock to efficient verification of nonlinear integer arithmetic using CDCL SAT solvers, by showing how to construct short resolution proofs for many properties of the most widely used multiplier circuits. Such short proofs were conjectured not to exist. More precisely, we give n^{O(1)} size regular resolution proofs for arbitrary degree 2 identities on array, diagonal, and Booth multipliers and quasipolynomial- n^{O(\log n)} size proofs for these identities on Wallace tree multipliers.Comment: Expanded and simplified with improved result

Resolution Trees with Lemmas: Resolution Refinements that Characterize DLL Algorithms with Clause Learning

Resolution refinements called w-resolution trees with lemmas (WRTL) and with input lemmas (WRTI) are introduced. Dag-like resolution is equivalent to both WRTL and WRTI when there is no regularity condition. For regular proofs, an exponential separation between regular dag-like resolution and both regular WRTL and regular WRTI is given. It is proved that DLL proof search algorithms that use clause learning based on unit propagation can be polynomially simulated by regular WRTI. More generally, non-greedy DLL algorithms with learning by unit propagation are equivalent to regular WRTI. A general form of clause learning, called DLL-Learn, is defined that is equivalent to regular WRTL. A variable extension method is used to give simulations of resolution by regular WRTI, using a simplified form of proof trace extensions. DLL-Learn and non-greedy DLL algorithms with learning by unit propagation can use variable extensions to simulate general resolution without doing restarts. Finally, an exponential lower bound for WRTL where the lemmas are restricted to short clauses is shown

Transition Systems for Model Generators - A Unifying Approach

A fundamental task for propositional logic is to compute models of propositional formulas. Programs developed for this task are called satisfiability solvers. We show that transition systems introduced by Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli to model and analyze satisfiability solvers can be adapted for solvers developed for two other propositional formalisms: logic programming under the answer-set semantics, and the logic PC(ID). We show that in each case the task of computing models can be seen as "satisfiability modulo answer-set programming," where the goal is to find a model of a theory that also is an answer set of a certain program. The unifying perspective we develop shows, in particular, that solvers CLASP and MINISATID are closely related despite being developed for different formalisms, one for answer-set programming and the latter for the logic PC(ID).Comment: 30 pages; Accepted for presentation at ICLP 2011 and for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming; contains the appendix with proof