research-article

Partial witnesses from preprocessed quantified Boolean formulas

Authors:

Robert KönighoferAuthors Info & Claims

DATE '14: Proceedings of the conference on Design, Automation & Test in Europe

Article No.: 149, Pages 1 - 6

Published: 24 March 2014 Publication History

Abstract

For effectively solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs), preprocessors have shown to be of great value. A preprocessor rewrites a formula such that helpful information is made explicit and irrelevant information is removed. For this purpose, techniques, which would be too costly when repeatedly applied during the solving process, are used. Unfortunately, most preprocessing techniques are not model preserving and therefore incompatible with certification frameworks. In consequence, the application of a preprocessor prohibits the extraction of witnesses encoding a solution or a counterexample of a formula.

In this paper, we show how to obtain partial witnesses from preprocessed QBFs. Partial witnesses are assignments for the variables of the outermost quantifier block and are extensible to full witnesses, which are usually represented as functions reflecting the dependencies between variables. For many applications, however, partial witnesses are sufficient. We modified the publicly available preprocessor bloqqer for extracting partial witnesses. We empirically compare the effectiveness of the modified and the original version of bloqqer. Further, we apply the new version of bloqqer for solving hardware synthesis problems for which it turns out to be extremely beneficial.

References

[1]

V. Balabanov and J. R. Jiang. Unified QBF certification and its applications. Formal Meth. in Syst. Design, 41(1):45--65, 2012.

Digital Library

[2]

B. Becker, R. Ehlers, M. Lewis, and P. Marin. ALLQBF Solving by Computational Learning. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. of Aut. Tech. for Verification and Analysis, pages 370--384. Springer, 2012.

Digital Library

[3]

M. Benedetti and H. Mangassarian. QBF-based formal verification: Experience and perspectives. JSAT, 5(1-4):133--191, 2008.

[4]

A. Biere, F. Lonsing, and M. Seidl. Blocked Clause Elimination for QBF. In Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE), volume 6803 of LNCS, pages 101--115. Springer, 2011.

Digital Library

[5]

R. Bloem, S. J. Galler, B. Jobstmann, N. Piterman, A. Pnueli, and M. Weiglhofer. Specify, Compile, Run: Hardware from PSL. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 190(4):3--16, 2007.

Digital Library

[6]

R. Bloem, R. Könighofer, and M. Seidl. Sat-based synthesis methods for safety specs. CoRR, abs/1311.3530, 2013.

[7]

H. Kleine Büning and U. Bubeck. Theory of Quantified Boolean Formulas. In HB of Sat., pages 735--760. IOS Press, 2009.

[8]

M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, 4:394--397, 1962.

Digital Library

[9]

M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM, 7:201--215, 1960.

Digital Library

[10]

A. Van Gelder. Certificate Extraction from Variable-Elimination QBF Preprocessors. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF 2013), pages 35--39. http://fmv.jku.at/qbf2013/reportQBFWS13.pdf, 2013.

[11]

A. Van Gelder, S. B. Wood, and F. Lonsing. Extended Failed-Literal Preprocessing for Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2012), volume 7317 of LNCS, pages 86--99. Springer, 2012.

Digital Library

[12]

E. Giunchiglia, P. Marin, and M. Narizzano. Reasoning with Quantified Boolean Formulas. In HB of Sat., pages 761--780. IOS Press, 2009.

[13]

E. Giunchiglia, P. Marin, and M. Narizzano. sQueezeBF: An Effective Preprocessor for QBFs Based on Equivalence Reasoning. In Proc. of the 13th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Sat. Testing (SAT 2010), pages 85--98. Springer, 2010.

Digital Library

[14]

M. Järvisalo and A. Biere. Reconstructing Solutions after Blocked Clause Elimination. In Proc. of th 13th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2010), volume 6175 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 340--345. Springer, 2010.

Digital Library

[15]

S. Kupferschmid, M. Lewis, T. Schubert, and B. Becker. Incremental preprocessing methods for use in BMC. Formal Meth. in Syst. Design, 39(2):185--204, 2011.

Digital Library

[16]

F. Lonsing and A. Biere. DepQBF: A dependency-aware QBF solver. JSAT, 7(2-3):71--76, 2010.

[17]

F. Lonsing, M. Seidl, and A. Van Gelder. The QBF Gallery 2013. URL: http://kr.tuwien.ac.at/qbfgallery13, 2013.

[18]

N. Manthey, T. Philipp, and C. Wernhard. Soundness of Inprocessing in Clause Sharing SAT Solvers. In Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2013), volume 7962 of LNCS, pages 22--39. Springer, 2013.

Digital Library

[19]

P. Marin, C. Miller, and B. Becker. Incremental QBF Preprocessing for Partial Design Verification. In Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2012), volume 7317 of LNCS, pages 473--474. Springer, 2012.

Digital Library

[20]

A. Niemetz, M. Preiner, F. Lonsing, M. Seidl, and A. Biere. Resolution-Based Certificate Extraction for QBF. In Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2012), volume 7317 of LNCS, pages 430--435. Springer, 2012.

Digital Library

[21]

D. A. Plaisted and S. Greenbaum. A Structure-Preserving Clause Form Translation. Journal of Symb. Computation, 2(3):293--304, 1986.

Digital Library

[22]

H. Samulowitz, J. Davies, and F. Bacchus. Preprocessing QBF. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2006), pages 514--529. Springer, 2006.

Digital Library

Cited By

Heule MSeidl MBiere A(2017)Solution Validation and Extraction for QBF PreprocessingJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-016-9390-458:1(97-125)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10817-016-9390-4
Egly UKronegger MLonsing FPfandler A(2017)Conformant planning as a case study of incremental QBF solvingAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-016-9501-280:1(21-45)Online publication date: 1-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10472-016-9501-2
Jacobs SBloem RBrenguier REhlers RHell TKönighofer RPérez GRaskin JRyzhyk LSankur OSeidl MTentrup LWalker A(2017)The first reactive synthesis competition (SYNTCOMP 2014)International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)10.1007/s10009-016-0416-319:3(367-390)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10009-016-0416-3
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Partial witnesses from preprocessed quantified Boolean formulas

Recommendations

A satisfiability procedure for quantified boolean formulae
The renesse issue on satisfiability

We present a satisfiability tester QSAT for quantified Boolean formulae and a restriction QSAT_CNF of QSAT to unquantified conjunctive normal form formulae. QSAT makes use of procedures which replace subformulae of a formula by equivalent formulae. By a ...
Watching clauses in Quantified Boolean Formulae
CP'03: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming

The introduction of watched literals[1], a lazy data structure for satisfiability (SAT) search algorithms, has resulted in great improvements in the run-time of SAT solvers. Watched literals keeps track of two literals remaining in a clause so as to ...
Algorithms for quantified Boolean formulas
SODA '02: Proceedings of the thirteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms

We present algorithms for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF, or sometimes QSAT) with worst case runtime asymptotically less than O(2ⁿ) when the clause-to-variable ratio is smaller or larger than some constant. We solve QBFs in conjunctive normal ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

DATE '14: Proceedings of the conference on Design, Automation & Test in Europe

March 2014

1959 pages

ISBN:9783981537024

General Chairs:
Gerhard Fettweis
TU Dresden, DE
,
Wolfgang Nebel
OFFIS, DE

Sponsors

EDAA: European Design Automation Association
ECSI
EDAC: Electronic Design Automation Consortium
IEEE Council on Electronic Design Automation (CEDA)
The Russian Academy of Sciences: The Russian Academy of Sciences

In-Cooperation

SIGDA: ACM Special Interest Group on Design Automation

Publisher

European Design and Automation Association

Leuven, Belgium

Publication History

Published: 24 March 2014

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

DATE '14

Sponsor:

EDAA
EDAC
The Russian Academy of Sciences

DATE '14: Design, Automation and Test in Europe

March 24 - 28, 2014

Dresden, Germany

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 518 of 1,794 submissions, 29%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
34
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)2
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Heule MSeidl MBiere A(2017)Solution Validation and Extraction for QBF PreprocessingJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-016-9390-458:1(97-125)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10817-016-9390-4
Egly UKronegger MLonsing FPfandler A(2017)Conformant planning as a case study of incremental QBF solvingAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-016-9501-280:1(21-45)Online publication date: 1-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10472-016-9501-2
Jacobs SBloem RBrenguier REhlers RHell TKönighofer RPérez GRaskin JRyzhyk LSankur OSeidl MTentrup LWalker A(2017)The first reactive synthesis competition (SYNTCOMP 2014)International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)10.1007/s10009-016-0416-319:3(367-390)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10009-016-0416-3
Faymonville PFinkbeiner BRabe MTentrup L(2017)Encodings of Bounded SynthesisProceedings, Part I, of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - Volume 1020510.1007/978-3-662-54577-5_20(354-370)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-662-54577-5_20
Heule MSeidl MBiere AJobstmann B(2014)Efficient Extraction of Skolem Functions from QRAT ProofsProceedings of the 14th Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design10.5555/2682923.2682946(107-114)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2682923.2682946
Bloem RKönighofer RSeidl M(2014)SAT-Based Synthesis Methods for Safety SpecsProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation - Volume 831810.1007/978-3-642-54013-4_1(1-20)Online publication date: 19-Jan-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-54013-4_1

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents