Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formalization and Implementation of Modern SAT Solvers

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most, if not all, state-of-the-art complete SAT solvers are complex variations of the DPLL procedure described in the early 1960’s. Published descriptions of these modern algorithms and related data structures are given either as high-level state transition systems or, informally, as (pseudo) programming language code. The former, although often accompanied with (informal) correctness proofs, are usually very abstract and do not specify many details crucial for efficient implementation. The latter usually do not involve any correctness argument and the given code is often hard to understand and modify. This paper aims to bridge this gap by presenting SAT solving algorithms that are formally proved correct and also contain information required for efficient implementation. We use a tutorial, top-down, approach and develop a SAT solver, starting from a simple design that is subsequently extended, step-by-step, with a requisite series of features. The heuristic parts of the solver are abstracted away, since they usually do not affect solver correctness (although they are very important for efficiency). All algorithms are given in pseudo-code and are accompanied with correctness conditions, given in Hoare logic style. The correctness proofs are formalized within the Isabelle theorem proving system and are available in the extended version of this paper. The given pseudo-code served as a basis for our SAT solver argo-sat.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrett, C.: Checking validity of quantifier-free formulas in combinations of first-order theories. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2003)

  2. Biere, A.: PicoSAT essentials. JSAT 4, 75–97 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bordeaux, L., Hamadi, Y., Zhang, L.: Propositional satisfiability and constraint programming: a comparative survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 38(4) (2006)

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

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Baptista, L., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Using randomization and learning to solve hard real-world instances of satisfiability. In: CP ’00. LNCS 1894, pp. 489–494, Singapore, 18–22 September 2000

  6. Bayardo, R.J. Jr., Schrag, R.C.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: 14th AAAI, pp. 203–208, Providence, 27–31 July 1997

  7. Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: 3rd STOC, pp. 151–158. ACM, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Een, N., Sorensson, N.: An extensible SAT solver. In: Ligure, S.M. (ed.) SAT ’03. LNCS 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gomes, C.P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A., Selman, B.: Satisfiability solvers. In: Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: a rast and robust SAT solver. In: DATE’02, pp. 142–149. Paris (2002)

  13. Gomes, C., Selman, B., Kautz, H.: Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In: 15th AAAI, pp. 431–437, Madison, 26–30 July 1998

  14. Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang, J.: A case for simple SAT solvers. In: CP ’07. LNCS 4741, pp. 839–846, Providence, September 2007

  16. Huang, J.: The effect of restarts on the efficiency of clause learning. In: IJCAI ’07, pp. 2318–2323, Hyderabad, 6–12 January 2007

  17. Krstić, S., Goel, A.: Architecting solvers for SAT modulo theories: Nelson-Oppen with DPLL. In: FroCos ’07. LNCS 4720, pp. 1–27, Liverpool, 10–12 September 2007

  18. Marić, F.: SAT solver verification. The archive of formal proofs. http://afp.sf.net/entries/SATSolverVerification.shtml (2008)

  19. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: DAC ’01, pp. 530–535, Las Vegas, 18–22 June 2001

  20. Marques-Silva, J.P.: The impact of branching heuristics in propositional satisfiability algorithms. In: EPIA ’99. LNCS 1695, pp. 62–74, Évora, September 1999

  21. Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: Grasp: a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(5), 506–521 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: from an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL—A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, LNCS 2283. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: A lightweight component caching scheme for satisfiability solvers. In: SAT ’07. LNCS 4501, pp. 294–299, Lisbon, May 2007

  25. Marques Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: Conflict analysis in search algorithms for satisfiability. In: 8th ICTAI, pp. 467–469, Toulouse, 16–19 November 1996

  26. Wiedijk, F.: Comparing mathematical provers. In: MKM 03. LNCS 2594, pp. 188–202, Bertinoro, February 2003

  27. Zhang, H.: SATO: an efficient propositional prover. In: CADE-14. LNCS 1249, pp. 272–275, Townsville (1997)

  28. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: The quest for efficient Boolean satisfiability solvers. In: CAV ’02. LNCS 2404, pp. 17–36, Copenhagen (2002)

  29. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using independent resolution-based checker. In: DATE ’03, pp. 10880–10885, Münich (2003)

  30. Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD ’01, pp. 279–285, San Jose (2001)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Filip Marić

Authors
  1. Filip Marić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filip Marić.

Additional information

This work was partially supported by Serbian Ministry of Science grant 144030.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marić, F. Formalization and Implementation of Modern SAT Solvers. J Autom Reasoning 43, 81–119 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-009-9127-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-009-9127-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation