Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-761
E. Giunchiglia, Paolo Marin, Massimo Narizzano
The implementation of effective reasoning tools for deciding the satisfiability of Quantified Boolean Formulas(QBFs) is an important research issue in Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. Indeed, QBF solvers have already been proposed for many reasoning tasks in knowledge representation and reasoning, in automated planning and in formal methods for computer aided design. Even more, since QBF reasoning is the prototypical PSPACE problem, the reduction of many other decision problems in PSPACE are readily available. For these reasons, in the last few years several decision procedures for QBFs have been proposed and implemented, mostly based either on search or on variable elimination, or on a combination of the two. In this chapter, after a brief recap of the basic terminology and notation about QBFs, we briefly review various applications of QBF reasoning that have been recently proposed, and then we focus on the description of the main approaches which are at the basis of currently available solvers for prenex QBFs in conjunctive normal form (CNF). Other approaches and extensions to non prenex, non CNF QBFs are briefly reviewed at the end of the chapter.
{"title":"Reasoning with Quantified Boolean Formulas","authors":"E. Giunchiglia, Paolo Marin, Massimo Narizzano","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-761","url":null,"abstract":"The implementation of effective reasoning tools for deciding the satisfiability of Quantified Boolean Formulas(QBFs) is an important research issue in Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. Indeed, QBF solvers have already been proposed for many reasoning tasks in knowledge representation and reasoning, in automated planning and in formal methods for computer aided design. Even more, since QBF reasoning is the prototypical PSPACE problem, the reduction of many other decision problems in PSPACE are readily available. For these reasons, in the last few years several decision procedures for QBFs have been proposed and implemented, mostly based either on search or on variable elimination, or on a combination of the two. In this chapter, after a brief recap of the basic terminology and notation about QBFs, we briefly review various applications of QBF reasoning that have been recently proposed, and then we focus on the description of the main approaches which are at the basis of currently available solvers for prenex QBFs in conjunctive normal form (CNF). Other approaches and extensions to non prenex, non CNF QBFs are briefly reviewed at the end of the chapter.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128337196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-339
H. K. Büning, O. Kullmann
Minimal unsatisfiability describes the reduced kernel of unsatisfiable formulas. The investigation of this property is very helpful in understanding the reasons for unsatisfiability as well as the behaviour of SAT-solvers and proof calculi. Moreover, for propositional formulas and quantified Boolean formulas the computational complexity of various SAT-related problems are strongly related to the complexity of minimal unsatisfiable formulas. While “minimal unsatisfiability” studies the structure of problem instances without redundancies, the study of “autarkies” considers the redundancies themselves, in various guises related to partial assignments which satisfy some part of the problem instance while leaving the rest “untouched”. As it turns out, autarky theory creates many bridges to combinatorics, algebra and logic, and the second part of this chapter provides a solid foundation of the basic ideas and results of autarky theory: the basic algorithmic problems, the algebra involved, and relations to various combinatorial theories (e.g., matching theory, linear programming, graph theory, the theory of permanents). Also the general theory of autarkies as a kind of combinatorial “meta theory” is sketched (regarding its basic notions).
{"title":"Minimal Unsatisfiability and Autarkies","authors":"H. K. Büning, O. Kullmann","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-339","url":null,"abstract":"Minimal unsatisfiability describes the reduced kernel of unsatisfiable formulas. The investigation of this property is very helpful in understanding the reasons for unsatisfiability as well as the behaviour of SAT-solvers and proof calculi. Moreover, for propositional formulas and quantified Boolean formulas the computational complexity of various SAT-related problems are strongly related to the complexity of minimal unsatisfiable formulas. While “minimal unsatisfiability” studies the structure of problem instances without redundancies, the study of “autarkies” considers the redundancies themselves, in various guises related to partial assignments which satisfy some part of the problem instance while leaving the rest “untouched”. As it turns out, autarky theory creates many bridges to combinatorics, algebra and logic, and the second part of this chapter provides a solid foundation of the basic ideas and results of autarky theory: the basic algorithmic problems, the algebra involved, and relations to various combinatorial theories (e.g., matching theory, linear programming, graph theory, the theory of permanents). Also the general theory of autarkies as a kind of combinatorial “meta theory” is sketched (regarding its basic notions).","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"157 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123563157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-781
R. Sebastiani, A. Tacchella
In the last two decades, modal and description logics have provided a theoretical framework for important applications in many areas of computer science. For this reason, the problem of automated reasoning in modal and description logics has been thoroughly investigated. In this chapter we show how efficient Boolean reasoning techniques have been imported, used and integrated into reasoning tools for modal and description logics. To this extent, we focus on modal logics, and in particular mainly on K(m). In particular, we provide some background in modal logics; we describe a basic theoretical framework and we present and analyze the basic tableau-based and DPLL-based techniques; we describe optimizations and extensions of the DPLL-based procedures; we introduce the automata-theoretic/OBDD-based approach; finally, we present the eager approach.
{"title":"SAT Techniques for Modal and Description Logics","authors":"R. Sebastiani, A. Tacchella","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-781","url":null,"abstract":"In the last two decades, modal and description logics have provided a theoretical framework for important applications in many areas of computer science. For this reason, the problem of automated reasoning in modal and description logics has been thoroughly investigated. In this chapter we show how efficient Boolean reasoning techniques have been imported, used and integrated into reasoning tools for modal and description logics. To this extent, we focus on modal logics, and in particular mainly on K(m). In particular, we provide some background in modal logics; we describe a basic theoretical framework and we present and analyze the basic tableau-based and DPLL-based techniques; we describe optimizations and extensions of the DPLL-based procedures; we introduce the automata-theoretic/OBDD-based approach; finally, we present the eager approach.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128478077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-533
Hantao Zhang
The theory of combinatorial designs has always been a rich source of structured, parametrized families of SAT instances. On one hand, design theory provides interesting problems for testing various SAT solvers; on the other hand, high-performance SAT solvers provide an alternative tool for attacking open problems in design theory, simply by encoding problems as propositional formulas, and then searching for their models using off-the-shelf general purpose SAT solvers. This chapter presents several case studies of using SAT solvers to solve hard design theory problems, including quasigroup problems, Ramsey numbers, Van der Waerden numbers, covering arrays, Steiner systems, and Mendelsohn designs. It is shown that over a hundred of previously-open design theory problems were solved by SAT solvers, thus demonstrating the significant power of modern SAT solvers. Moreover, the chapter provides a list of 30 open design theory problems for the developers of SAT solvers to test their new ideas and weapons.
{"title":"Combinatorial Designs by SAT Solvers","authors":"Hantao Zhang","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-533","url":null,"abstract":"The theory of combinatorial designs has always been a rich source of structured, parametrized families of SAT instances. On one hand, design theory provides interesting problems for testing various SAT solvers; on the other hand, high-performance SAT solvers provide an alternative tool for attacking open problems in design theory, simply by encoding problems as propositional formulas, and then searching for their models using off-the-shelf general purpose SAT solvers. This chapter presents several case studies of using SAT solvers to solve hard design theory problems, including quasigroup problems, Ramsey numbers, Van der Waerden numbers, covering arrays, Steiner systems, and Mendelsohn designs. It is shown that over a hundred of previously-open design theory problems were solved by SAT solvers, thus demonstrating the significant power of modern SAT solvers. Moreover, the chapter provides a list of 30 open design theory problems for the developers of SAT solvers to test their new ideas and weapons.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127074676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-75
S. Prestwich
Before a combinatorial problem can be solved by current SAT methods, it must usually be encoded in conjunctive normal form, which facilitates algorithm implementation and allows a common file format for problems. Unfortunately there are several ways of encoding most problems and few guidelines on how to choose among them, yet the choice of encoding can be as important as the choice of search algorithm. This chapter reviews theoretical and empirical work on encoding methods, including the use of Tseitin encodings, the encoding of extensional and intensional constraints, the interaction between encodings and search algorithms, and some common sources of error. Case studies are used for illustration.
{"title":"CNF Encodings","authors":"S. Prestwich","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-75","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-75","url":null,"abstract":"Before a combinatorial problem can be solved by current SAT methods, it must usually be encoded in conjunctive normal form, which facilitates algorithm implementation and allows a common file format for problems. Unfortunately there are several ways of encoding most problems and few guidelines on how to choose among them, yet the choice of encoding can be as important as the choice of search algorithm. This chapter reviews theoretical and empirical work on encoding methods, including the use of Tseitin encodings, the encoding of extensional and intensional constraints, the interaction between encodings and search algorithms, and some common sources of error. Case studies are used for illustration.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"162 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132397435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-613
Chu Min Li, F. Manyà
MaxSAT solving is becoming a competitive generic approach for solving combinatorial optimization problems, partly due to the development of new solving techniques that have been recently incorporated into modern MaxSAT solvers, and to the challenge problems posed at the MaxSAT Evaluations. In this chapter we present the most relevant results on both approximate and exact MaxSAT solving, and survey in more detail the techniques that have proven to be useful in branch and bound MaxSAT and Weighted MaxSAT solvers. Among such techniques, we pay special attention to the definition of good quality lower bounds, powerful inference rules, clever variable selection heuristics and suitable data structures. Moreover, we discuss the advantages of dealing with hard and soft constraints in the Partial MaxSAT formalims, and present a summary of the MaxSAT Evaluations that have been organized so far as affiliated events of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing.
{"title":"MaxSAT, Hard and Soft Constraints","authors":"Chu Min Li, F. Manyà","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-613","url":null,"abstract":"MaxSAT solving is becoming a competitive generic approach for solving combinatorial optimization problems, partly due to the development of new solving techniques that have been recently incorporated into modern MaxSAT solvers, and to the challenge problems posed at the MaxSAT Evaluations. In this chapter we present the most relevant results on both approximate and exact MaxSAT solving, and survey in more detail the techniques that have proven to be useful in branch and bound MaxSAT and Weighted MaxSAT solvers. Among such techniques, we pay special attention to the definition of good quality lower bounds, powerful inference rules, clever variable selection heuristics and suitable data structures. Moreover, we discuss the advantages of dealing with hard and soft constraints in the Partial MaxSAT formalims, and present a summary of the MaxSAT Evaluations that have been organized so far as affiliated events of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115152689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Preprocessing has become a key component of the Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving workflow. In practice, preprocessing is situated between the encoding phase and the solving phase, with the aim of decreasing the total solving time by applying efficient simplification techniques on SAT instances to speed up the search subsequently performed by a SAT solver. In this chapter, we overview key preprocessing techniques proposed in the literature. While the main focus is on techniques applicable to formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF), we also selectively cover main ideas for preprocessing structural and higher-level SAT instance representations.
{"title":"Preprocessing in SAT Solving","authors":"Armin Biere, M. Järvisalo, B. Kiesl","doi":"10.3233/FAIA200992","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200992","url":null,"abstract":"Preprocessing has become a key component of the Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving workflow. In practice, preprocessing is situated between the encoding phase and the solving phase, with the aim of decreasing the total solving time by applying efficient simplification techniques on SAT instances to speed up the search subsequently performed by a SAT solver. In this chapter, we overview key preprocessing techniques proposed in the literature. While the main focus is on techniques applicable to formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF), we also selectively cover main ideas for preprocessing structural and higher-level SAT instance representations.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120907871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Supratik Chakraborty, Kuldeep S. Meel, Moshe Y. Vardi
Model counting, or counting solutions of a set of constraints, is a fundamental problem in Computer Science with diverse applications. Since exact counting is computationally hard (#P complete), approximate counting techniques have received much attention over the past few decades. In this chapter, we focus on counting models of propositional formulas, and discuss in detail universal-hashing based approximate counting, which has emerged as the predominant paradigm for state-of-the-art approximate model counters. These counters are randomized algorithms that exploit properties of universal hash functions to provide rigorous approximation guarantees, while piggybacking on impressive advances in propositional satisfiability solving to scale up to problem instances with a million variables. We elaborate on various choices in designing such approximate counters and the implications of these choices. We also discuss variants of approximate model counting, such as DNF counting and weighted counting.
{"title":"Approximate Model Counting","authors":"Supratik Chakraborty, Kuldeep S. Meel, Moshe Y. Vardi","doi":"10.3233/FAIA201010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA201010","url":null,"abstract":"Model counting, or counting solutions of a set of constraints, is a fundamental problem in Computer Science with diverse applications. Since exact counting is computationally hard (#P complete), approximate counting techniques have received much attention over the past few decades. In this chapter, we focus on counting models of propositional formulas, and discuss in detail universal-hashing based approximate counting, which has emerged as the predominant paradigm for state-of-the-art approximate model counters. These counters are randomized algorithms that exploit properties of universal hash functions to provide rigorous approximation guarantees, while piggybacking on impressive advances in propositional satisfiability solving to scale up to problem instances with a million variables. We elaborate on various choices in designing such approximate counters and the implications of these choices. We also discuss variants of approximate model counting, such as DNF counting and weighted counting.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"02 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128959115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-825
Clark W. Barrett, R. Sebastiani, S. Seshia, C. Tinelli
Applications in artificial intelligence, formal verification, and other areas have greatly benefited from the recent advances in SAT. It is often the case, however, that applications in these fields require determining the satisfiability of formulas in more expressive logics such as first-order logic. Also, these applications typically require not general first-order satisfiability, but rather satisfiability with respect to some background theory, which fixes the interpretations of certain predicate and function symbols. For many background theories, specialized methods yield decision procedures for the satisfiability of quantifier-free formulas or some subclass thereof. Specialized decision procedures have been discovered for a long and still growing list of theories with practical applications. These include the theory of equality, various theories of arithmetic, and certain theories of arrays, as well as theories of lists, tuples, records, and bit-vectors of a fixed or arbitrary finite size. The research field concerned with determining the satisfiability of formulas with respect to some background theory is called Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). This chapter provides a brief overview of SMT together with references to the relevant literature for a deeper study. It begins with an overview of techniques for solving SMT problems by encodings to SAT. The rest of the chapter is mostly concerned with an alternative approach in which a SAT solver is integrated with a separate decision procedure (called a theory solver) for conjunctions of literals in the background theory. After presenting this approach as a whole, the chapter provides more details on how to construct and combine theory solvers, and discusses several extensions and enhancements.
{"title":"Satisfiability Modulo Theories","authors":"Clark W. Barrett, R. Sebastiani, S. Seshia, C. Tinelli","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-825","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-825","url":null,"abstract":"Applications in artificial intelligence, formal verification, and other areas have greatly benefited from the recent advances in SAT. It is often the case, however, that applications in these fields require determining the satisfiability of formulas in more expressive logics such as first-order logic. Also, these applications typically require not general first-order satisfiability, but rather satisfiability with respect to some background theory, which fixes the interpretations of certain predicate and function symbols. For many background theories, specialized methods yield decision procedures for the satisfiability of quantifier-free formulas or some subclass thereof. Specialized decision procedures have been discovered for a long and still growing list of theories with practical applications. These include the theory of equality, various theories of arithmetic, and certain theories of arrays, as well as theories of lists, tuples, records, and bit-vectors of a fixed or arbitrary finite size. The research field concerned with determining the satisfiability of formulas with respect to some background theory is called Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). This chapter provides a brief overview of SMT together with references to the relevant literature for a deeper study. It begins with an overview of techniques for solving SMT problems by encodings to SAT. The rest of the chapter is mostly concerned with an alternative approach in which a SAT solver is integrated with a separate decision procedure (called a theory solver) for conjunctions of literals in the background theory. After presenting this approach as a whole, the chapter provides more details on how to construct and combine theory solvers, and discusses several extensions and enhancements.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133993159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Satisfiability (SAT) solvers have become complex tools, which raises the question of whether we can trust their results. This question is particularly important when the solvers are used to determine the correctness of hardware and software and when they are used to produce mathematical results. To deal with this issue, solvers can provide proofs of unsatisfiability to certify the correctness of their answers. This chapter presents the history and state-of-the-art of producing and validating proofs of unsatisfiability. The chapter covers the most popular proof formats with and without hints to speed up certification. Hints in proofs make validation easy, which resulted in several efficient formally-verified checkers. Various proof systems are discussed, ranging from resolution to the recent propagation redundancy system. The chapter also describes techniques to compress and optimize proofs.
{"title":"Proofs of Unsatisfiability","authors":"Marijn J. H. Heule","doi":"10.3233/FAIA200998","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200998","url":null,"abstract":"Satisfiability (SAT) solvers have become complex tools, which raises the question of whether we can trust their results. This question is particularly important when the solvers are used to determine the correctness of hardware and software and when they are used to produce mathematical results. To deal with this issue, solvers can provide proofs of unsatisfiability to certify the correctness of their answers. This chapter presents the history and state-of-the-art of producing and validating proofs of unsatisfiability. The chapter covers the most popular proof formats with and without hints to speed up certification. Hints in proofs make validation easy, which resulted in several efficient formally-verified checkers. Various proof systems are discussed, ranging from resolution to the recent propagation redundancy system. The chapter also describes techniques to compress and optimize proofs.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129290944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：