Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-695
Olivier Roussel, Vasco M. Manquinho
Pseudo-Boolean and cardinality constraints are a natural generalization of clauses. While a clause expresses that at least one literal must be true, a cardinality constraint expresses that at least n literals must be true and a pseudo-Boolean constraint states that a weighted sum of literals must be greater than a constant. These contraints have a high expressive power, have been intensively studied in 0/1 programming and are close enough to the satisfiability problem to benefit from the recents advances in this field. Besides, optimization problems are naturally expressed in the pseudo-Boolean context. This chapter presents the inference rules on pseudo-Boolean constraints and demonstrates their increased inference power in comparison with resolution. It also shows how the modern satisfiability algorithms can be extended to deal with pseudo-Boolean constraints.
{"title":"Pseudo-Boolean and Cardinality Constraints","authors":"Olivier Roussel, Vasco M. Manquinho","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-695","url":null,"abstract":"Pseudo-Boolean and cardinality constraints are a natural generalization of clauses. While a clause expresses that at least one literal must be true, a cardinality constraint expresses that at least n literals must be true and a pseudo-Boolean constraint states that a weighted sum of literals must be greater than a constant. These contraints have a high expressive power, have been intensively studied in 0/1 programming and are close enough to the satisfiability problem to benefit from the recents advances in this field. Besides, optimization problems are naturally expressed in the pseudo-Boolean context. This chapter presents the inference rules on pseudo-Boolean constraints and demonstrates their increased inference power in comparison with resolution. It also shows how the modern satisfiability algorithms can be extended to deal with pseudo-Boolean constraints.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"26 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":"116744023","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: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-735
H. K. Büning, Uwe Bubeck
Quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) are a generalization of propositional formulas by allowing universal and existential quantifiers over variables. This enhancement makes QBF a concise and natural modeling language in which problems from many areas, such as planning, scheduling or verification, can often be encoded in a more compact way than with propositional formulas. We introduce in this chapter the syntax and semantics of QBF and present fundamental concepts. This includes normal form transformations and Q-resolution, an extension of the propositional resolution calculus. In addition, Boolean function models are introduced to describe the valuation of formulas and the behavior of the quantifiers. We also discuss the expressive power of QBF and provide an overview of important complexity results. These illustrate that the greater capabilities of QBF lead to more complex problems, which makes it interesting to consider suitable subclasses of QBF. In particular, we give a detailed look at quantified Horn formulas (QHORN) and quantified 2-CNF (Q2-CNF).
{"title":"Theory of Quantified Boolean Formulas","authors":"H. K. Büning, Uwe Bubeck","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-735","url":null,"abstract":"Quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) are a generalization of propositional formulas by allowing universal and existential quantifiers over variables. This enhancement makes QBF a concise and natural modeling language in which problems from many areas, such as planning, scheduling or verification, can often be encoded in a more compact way than with propositional formulas. We introduce in this chapter the syntax and semantics of QBF and present fundamental concepts. This includes normal form transformations and Q-resolution, an extension of the propositional resolution calculus. In addition, Boolean function models are introduced to describe the valuation of formulas and the behavior of the quantifiers. We also discuss the expressive power of QBF and provide an overview of important complexity results. These illustrate that the greater capabilities of QBF lead to more complex problems, which makes it interesting to consider suitable subclasses of QBF. In particular, we give a detailed look at quantified Horn formulas (QHORN) and quantified 2-CNF (Q2-CNF).","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":"130866510","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: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-425
M. Samer, Stefan Szeider
Parameterized complexity is a new theoretical framework that considers, in addition to the overall input size, the effects on computational complexity of a secondary measurement, the parameter. This two-dimensional viewpoint allows a fine-grained complexity analysis that takes structural properties of problem instances into account. The central notion is “fixed-parameter tractability” which refers to solvability in polynomial time for each fixed value of the parameter such that the order of the polynomial time bound is independent of the parameter. This chapter presents main concepts and recent results on the parameterized complexity of the satisfiability problem and it outlines fundamental algorithmic ideas that arise in this context. Among the parameters considered are the size of backdoor sets with respect to various tractable base classes and the treewidth of graph representations of satisfiability instances.
{"title":"Fixed-Parameter Tractability","authors":"M. Samer, Stefan Szeider","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-425","url":null,"abstract":"Parameterized complexity is a new theoretical framework that considers, in addition to the overall input size, the effects on computational complexity of a secondary measurement, the parameter. This two-dimensional viewpoint allows a fine-grained complexity analysis that takes structural properties of problem instances into account. The central notion is “fixed-parameter tractability” which refers to solvability in polynomial time for each fixed value of the parameter such that the order of the polynomial time bound is independent of the parameter. This chapter presents main concepts and recent results on the parameterized complexity of the satisfiability problem and it outlines fundamental algorithmic ideas that arise in this context. Among the parameters considered are the size of backdoor sets with respect to various tractable base classes and the treewidth of graph representations of satisfiability instances.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"100 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":"114303110","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}
This chapter traces the links between the notion of Satisfiability and the attempts by mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, and scientists over the last 2300 years to develop effective processes for emulating human reasoning and scientific discovery, and for assisting in the development of electronic computers and other electronic components. Satisfiability was present implicitly in the development of ancient logics such as Aristotle’s syllogistic logic, its extentions by the Stoics, and Lull’s diagrammatic logic of the medieval period. From the renaissance to Boole algebraic approaches to effective process replaced the logics of the ancients and all but enunciated the meaning of Satisfiability for propositional logic. Clarification of the concept is credited to Tarski in working out necessary and sufficient conditions for “p is true” for any formula p in first-order syntax. At about the same time, the study of effective process increased in importance with the resulting development of lambda calculus, recursive function theory, and Turing machines, all of which became the foundations of computer science and are linked to the notion of Satisfiability. Shannon provided the link to the computer age and Davis and Putnam directly linked Satisfiability to automated reasoning via an algorithm which is the backbone of most modern SAT solvers. These events propelled the study of Satisfiability for the next several decades, reaching “epidemic proportions” in the 1990s and 2000s, and the chapter concludes with a brief history of each of the major Satisfiability-related research tracks that developed during that period.
{"title":"A History of Satisfiability","authors":"J. Franco, J. Martin","doi":"10.3233/FAIA200984","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200984","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the links between the notion of Satisfiability and the attempts by mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, and scientists over the last 2300 years to develop effective processes for emulating human reasoning and scientific discovery, and for assisting in the development of electronic computers and other electronic components. Satisfiability was present implicitly in the development of ancient logics such as Aristotle’s syllogistic logic, its extentions by the Stoics, and Lull’s diagrammatic logic of the medieval period. From the renaissance to Boole algebraic approaches to effective process replaced the logics of the ancients and all but enunciated the meaning of Satisfiability for propositional logic. Clarification of the concept is credited to Tarski in working out necessary and sufficient conditions for “p is true” for any formula p in first-order syntax. At about the same time, the study of effective process increased in importance with the resulting development of lambda calculus, recursive function theory, and Turing machines, all of which became the foundations of computer science and are linked to the notion of Satisfiability. Shannon provided the link to the computer age and Davis and Putnam directly linked Satisfiability to automated reasoning via an algorithm which is the backbone of most modern SAT solvers. These events propelled the study of Satisfiability for the next several decades, reaching “epidemic proportions” in the 1990s and 2000s, and the chapter concludes with a brief history of each of the major Satisfiability-related research tracks that developed during that period.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"65 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":"114674709","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: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-633
C. Gomes, Ashish Sabharwal, B. Selman
Model counting, or counting the number of solutions of a propositional formula, generalizes SAT and is the canonical #P-complete problem. Surprisingly, model counting is hard even for some polynomial-time solvable cases like 2-SAT and Horn-SAT. Efficient algorithms for this problem will have a significant impact on many application areas that are inherently beyond SAT, such as bounded-length adversarial and contingency planning, and, perhaps most importantly, general probabilistic inference. Model counting can be solved, in principle and to an extent in practice, by extending the two most successful frameworks for SAT algorithms, namely, DPLL and local search. However, scalability and accuracy pose a substantial challenge. As a result, several new ideas have been introduced in the last few years that go beyond the techniques usually employed in most SAT solvers. These include division into components, caching, compilation into normal forms, exploitation of solution sampling methods, and certain randomized streamlining techniques using special constraints. This chapter discusses these techniques, exploring both exact methods as well as fast estimation approaches, including those that provide probabilistic or statistical guarantees on the quality of the reported lower or upper bound on the model count.
模型计数，或计算一个命题公式的解的个数，推广了SAT，是典型的# p -完全问题。令人惊讶的是，即使对于一些多项式时间可解的情况，如2-SAT和Horn-SAT，模型计数也很难。这个问题的有效算法将对许多本质上超出SAT的应用领域产生重大影响，例如有界长度对抗和应急计划，也许最重要的是，一般概率推理。通过扩展两个最成功的SAT算法框架，即DPLL和局部搜索，可以在原则上和一定程度上解决模型计数问题。然而，可伸缩性和准确性构成了实质性的挑战。因此，在过去的几年里，一些新的想法被引入，这些想法超出了大多数SAT解决方案中通常使用的技术。其中包括组件划分、缓存、编译为标准形式、利用解决方案抽样方法，以及使用特殊约束的某些随机流线型技术。本章讨论了这些技术，探索了精确方法和快速估计方法，包括那些对模型计数的报告下界或上界的质量提供概率或统计保证的方法。
{"title":"Model Counting","authors":"C. Gomes, Ashish Sabharwal, B. Selman","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-633","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-633","url":null,"abstract":"Model counting, or counting the number of solutions of a propositional formula, generalizes SAT and is the canonical #P-complete problem. Surprisingly, model counting is hard even for some polynomial-time solvable cases like 2-SAT and Horn-SAT. Efficient algorithms for this problem will have a significant impact on many application areas that are inherently beyond SAT, such as bounded-length adversarial and contingency planning, and, perhaps most importantly, general probabilistic inference. Model counting can be solved, in principle and to an extent in practice, by extending the two most successful frameworks for SAT algorithms, namely, DPLL and local search. However, scalability and accuracy pose a substantial challenge. As a result, several new ideas have been introduced in the last few years that go beyond the techniques usually employed in most SAT solvers. These include division into components, caching, compilation into normal forms, exploitation of solution sampling methods, and certain randomized streamlining techniques using special constraints. This chapter discusses these techniques, exploring both exact methods as well as fast estimation approaches, including those that provide probabilistic or statistical guarantees on the quality of the reported lower or upper bound on the model count.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"44 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":"134486983","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: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-655
R. Drechsler, Tommi A. Junttila, I. Niemelä
When studying the propositional satisfiability problem (SAT), that is, the problem of deciding whether a propositional formula is satisfiable, it is typically assumed that the formula is given in the conjunctive normal form (CNF). Also most software tools for deciding satisfiability of a formula (SAT solvers) assume that their input is in CNF. An important reason for this is that it is simpler to develop efficient data structures and algorithms for CNF than for arbitrary formulas. On the other hand, using CNF makes efficient modeling of an application cumbersome. Therefore one often employs a more general formula representation in modeling and then transforms the formula into CNF for SAT solvers. Transforming a propositional formula in CNF either increases the formula size exponentially or requires the use of auxiliary variables, which can have an negative effect on the performance of a SAT solver in the worst-case. Moreover, by translating to CNF one often loses information about the structure of the original problem. In this chapter we survey methods for solving propositional satisfiability problems when the input formula is not given in CNF but as a general formula or even more compactly as a Boolean circuit. We show how the techniques applied in CNF level Davis-Putnam-Loveland-Logemann algorithm generalize to Boolean circuits and how the problem structure available in the circuit form can be exploited. Then we consider a closely related area of automatic test pattern generation (ATPG) for digital circuits and review classical ATPG algorithms, formulation of ATPG as a SAT problem, and advanced techniques for SAT-based ATPG.
{"title":"Non-Clausal SAT and ATPG","authors":"R. Drechsler, Tommi A. Junttila, I. Niemelä","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-655","url":null,"abstract":"When studying the propositional satisfiability problem (SAT), that is, the problem of deciding whether a propositional formula is satisfiable, it is typically assumed that the formula is given in the conjunctive normal form (CNF). Also most software tools for deciding satisfiability of a formula (SAT solvers) assume that their input is in CNF. An important reason for this is that it is simpler to develop efficient data structures and algorithms for CNF than for arbitrary formulas. On the other hand, using CNF makes efficient modeling of an application cumbersome. Therefore one often employs a more general formula representation in modeling and then transforms the formula into CNF for SAT solvers. Transforming a propositional formula in CNF either increases the formula size exponentially or requires the use of auxiliary variables, which can have an negative effect on the performance of a SAT solver in the worst-case. Moreover, by translating to CNF one often loses information about the structure of the original problem. In this chapter we survey methods for solving propositional satisfiability problems when the input formula is not given in CNF but as a general formula or even more compactly as a Boolean circuit. We show how the techniques applied in CNF level Davis-Putnam-Loveland-Logemann algorithm generalize to Boolean circuits and how the problem structure available in the circuit form can be exploited. Then we consider a closely related area of automatic test pattern generation (ATPG) for digital circuits and review classical ATPG algorithms, formulation of ATPG as a SAT problem, and advanced techniques for SAT-based ATPG.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"20 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":"129778025","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}
This chapter gives an overview of proof complexity and connections to SAT solving, focusing on proof systems such as resolution, Nullstellensatz, polynomial calculus, and cutting planes (corresponding to conflict-driven clause learning, algebraic approaches using linear algebra or Gröbner bases, and pseudo-Boolean solving, respectively). There is also a discussion of extended resolution (which is closely related to DRAT proof logging) and Frege and extended Frege systems more generally. An ample supply of references for further reading is provided, including for some topics omitted in this chapter.
{"title":"Proof Complexity and SAT Solving","authors":"S. Buss, Jakob Nordström","doi":"10.3233/FAIA200990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200990","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter gives an overview of proof complexity and connections to SAT solving, focusing on proof systems such as resolution, Nullstellensatz, polynomial calculus, and cutting planes (corresponding to conflict-driven clause learning, algebraic approaches using linear algebra or Gröbner bases, and pseudo-Boolean solving, respectively). There is also a discussion of extended resolution (which is closely related to DRAT proof logging) and Frege and extended Frege systems more generally. An ample supply of references for further reading is provided, including for some topics omitted in this chapter.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"48 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":"115861364","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: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-99
Adnan Darwiche, Knot Pipatsrisawat
Complete SAT algorithms form an important part of the SAT literature. From a theoretical perspective, complete algorithms can be used as tools for studying the complexities of different proof systems. From a practical point of view, these algorithms form the basis for tackling SAT problems arising from real-world applications. The practicality of modern, complete SAT solvers undoubtedly contributes to the growing interest in the class of complete SAT algorithms. We review these algorithms in this chapter, including Davis-Putnum resolution, Stalmarck’s algorithm, symbolic SAT solving, the DPLL algorithm, and modern clause-learning SAT solvers. We also discuss the issue of certifying the answers of modern complete SAT solvers.
{"title":"Complete Algorithms","authors":"Adnan Darwiche, Knot Pipatsrisawat","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-99","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-99","url":null,"abstract":"Complete SAT algorithms form an important part of the SAT literature. From a theoretical perspective, complete algorithms can be used as tools for studying the complexities of different proof systems. From a practical point of view, these algorithms form the basis for tackling SAT problems arising from real-world applications. The practicality of modern, complete SAT solvers undoubtedly contributes to the growing interest in the class of complete SAT algorithms. We review these algorithms in this chapter, including Davis-Putnum resolution, Stalmarck’s algorithm, symbolic SAT solving, the DPLL algorithm, and modern clause-learning SAT solvers. We also discuss the issue of certifying the answers of modern complete SAT solvers.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"45 4 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":"114561070","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}
This chapter provides an introduction to the automated configuration and selection of SAT algorithms and gives an overview of the most prominent approaches. Since the early 2000s, these so-called meta-algorithmic approaches have played a major role in advancing the state of the art in SAT solving, giving rise to new ways of using and evaluating SAT solvers. At the same time, SAT has proven to be particularly fertile ground for research and development in the area of automated configuration and selection, and methods developed there have meanwhile achieved impact far beyond SAT, across a broad range of computationally challenging problems. Conceptually more complex approaches that go beyond “pure” algorithm configuration and selection are also discussed, along with some open challenges related to meta-algorithmic approaches, such as automated algorithm configuration and selection, to the tools based on these approaches, and to their effective application.
{"title":"Automated Configuration and Selection of SAT Solvers","authors":"H. Hoos, F. Hutter, K. Leyton-Brown","doi":"10.3233/FAIA200995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200995","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides an introduction to the automated configuration and selection of SAT algorithms and gives an overview of the most prominent approaches. Since the early 2000s, these so-called meta-algorithmic approaches have played a major role in advancing the state of the art in SAT solving, giving rise to new ways of using and evaluating SAT solvers. At the same time, SAT has proven to be particularly fertile ground for research and development in the area of automated configuration and selection, and methods developed there have meanwhile achieved impact far beyond SAT, across a broad range of computationally challenging problems. Conceptually more complex approaches that go beyond “pure” algorithm configuration and selection are also discussed, along with some open challenges related to meta-algorithmic approaches, such as automated algorithm configuration and selection, to the tools based on these approaches, and to their effective application.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"24 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":"114941286","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: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-483
J. Rintanen
The planning problem in Artificial Intelligence was the first application of SAT to reasoning about transition systems and a direct precursor to the use of SAT in a number of other applications, including bounded model-checking in computer-aided verification. This chapter presents the main ideas about encoding goal reachability problems as a SAT problem, including parallel plans and different forms of constraints for speeding up SAT solving, as well as algorithms for solving the AI planning problem with a SAT solver. Finally, more general planning problems that require the use of QBF or other generalizations of SAT are discussed.
{"title":"Planning and SAT","authors":"J. Rintanen","doi":"10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-483","url":null,"abstract":"The planning problem in Artificial Intelligence was the first application of SAT to reasoning about transition systems and a direct precursor to the use of SAT in a number of other applications, including bounded model-checking in computer-aided verification. This chapter presents the main ideas about encoding goal reachability problems as a SAT problem, including parallel plans and different forms of constraints for speeding up SAT solving, as well as algorithms for solving the AI planning problem with a SAT solver. Finally, more general planning problems that require the use of QBF or other generalizations of SAT are discussed.","PeriodicalId":250589,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Satisfiability","volume":"265 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":"127547427","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：