Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1996)
Cliques, Coloring, and Satissability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge., v olume 26 of DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science
M. Dalal, David Etherington (1992)
A Hierarchy of Tractable Satisfiability ProblemsInf. Process. Lett., 44
R. Letz, Klaus Mayr, C. Goller (1994)
Controlled integration of the cut rule into connection tableau calculiJournal of Automated Reasoning, 13
Joao Marques-Silva, K. Sakallah (1996)
GRASP-A new search algorithm for satisfiabilityProceedings of International Conference on Computer Aided Design
A. Gelder (1999)
Autarky Pruning in Propositional Model Elimination Reduces Failure RedundancyJournal of Automated Reasoning, 23
A. Gelder, Yumi Tsuji (1995)
Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing
B. Monien, Ewald Speckenmeyer (1985)
Solving satisfiability in less than 2n stepsDiscret. Appl. Math., 10
O.L. Astrachan, M.E. Stickel (1992)
Automated Deduction — CADE-11. Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction
D. Loveland (1968)
Mechanical Theorem-Proving by Model EliminationJ. ACM, 15
A. Van Gelder, Y.K. Tsuji (1996)
Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge
T. Larrabee, Yumi Tsuji (1992)
EVIDENCE FOR A SATISFIABILITY THRESHOLD FOR RANDOM 3CNF FORMULAS
(1974)
A Graph-Theoretic View of Resolution Theorem-Proving Also available from CSL, SRI International
course the loop in tryRefuteClause is exited. But if p succeeds, its C-literal, :p, produces a contradiction in L, and generates a lemma-induced cut
Hantao Zhang (1997)
SATO: An Efficient Propositional Prover
Then fa; cg is an autarky of S, with autsat(S; fa; cg) = fa; b]; :a; c]g autrem(S; fa; cg) = fb; d]g However, fag is not an autarky because of clause :a; c
D. Loveland (1972)
A Unifying View of Some Linear Herbrand ProceduresJournal of the ACM (JACM), 19
(1996)
Cliques, Coloring, and Satis ability: Second DIMACS Implementation Challenge., volume 26 of DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science
A. VanGelder (1995)
SIMULTANEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF REFUTATIONS AND MODELS FOR PROPOSITIONAL FORMULAS
O. Astrachan, D. Loveland (1997)
The Use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination ProcedureJournal of Automated Reasoning, 19
J. Minker, G. Zanon (1982)
An Extension to Linear Resolution with Selection FunctionInf. Process. Lett., 14
J.P. Silva, K.A. Sakallah (1996)
Proc. IEEE/ACM Int'l Conf. on Computer-Aided Design
R. Shostak (1976)
Refutation GraphsArtif. Intell., 7
M. Stickel (1994)
Upside-down meta-interpretation of the model elimination theorem-proving procedure for deduction and abductionJournal of Automated Reasoning, 13
R. Kowalski, D. Kuehner (1971)
Linear Resolution with Selection FunctionArtif. Intell., 2
D. Mitchell, B. Selman, H. Levesque (1992)
Hard and Easy Distributions of SAT Problems
(1974)
A graph-theoretic view of resolution theorem-proving
D. Loveland (1969)
A Simplified Format for the Model Elimination Theorem-Proving ProcedureJournal of the ACM (JACM), 16
S. Fleisig, D. Loveland, A. Smiley, D. Yarmush (1974)
An Implementation of the Model Elimination Proof ProcedureJ. ACM, 21
D. Loveland (1978)
Automated theorem proving: a logical basis, 6
O. Astrachan, M. Stickel (1992)
Caching and Lemmaizing in Model Elimination Theorem Provers
T. Larrabee (1992)
Test pattern generation using Boolean satisfiabilityIEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst., 11
This paper describes new “lemma” and “cut” strategies that are efficient to apply in the setting of propositional Model Elimination. Previous strategies for managing lemmas and C-literals in Model Elimination were oriented toward first-order theorem proving. The original “cumulative” strategy remembers lemmas forever, and was found to be too inefficient. The previously reported C-literal and unit-lemma strategies, such as “strong regularity”, forget them unnecessarily soon in the propositional domain. An intermediate strategy, called “quasi-persistent” lemmas, is introduced. Supplementing this strategy, methods for “eager” lemmas and two forms of controlled “cut” provide further efficiencies. The techniques have been incorporated into “Modoc”, which is an implementation of Model Elimination, extended with a new pruning method that is designed to eliminate certain refutation attempts that cannot succeed. Experimental data show that on random 3CNF formulas at the “hard” ratio of 4.27 clauses per variable, Modoc is not as effective as recently reported model-searching methods. However, on more structured formulas from applications, such as circuit-fault detection, it is superior.
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 30, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.