The complexity of facets resolved
Journal of Computer and System Sciences - 26th IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, October 21-23, 1985
AMUSE: a minimally-unsatisfiable subformula extractor
Proceedings of the 41st annual Design Automation Conference
Iterative Abstraction using SAT-based BMC with Proof Analysis
Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/ACM international conference on Computer-aided design
Verification of Proofs of Unsatisfiability for CNF Formulas
DATE '03 Proceedings of the conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe - Volume 1
Learning abstractions for model checking
Learning abstractions for model checking
On-the-fly resolve trace minimization
Proceedings of the 44th annual Design Automation Conference
Algorithms for Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets of Constraints
Journal of Automated Reasoning
An approach for extracting a small unsatisfiable core
Formal Methods in System Design
Efficient Generation of Unsatisfiability Proofs and Cores in SAT
LPAR '08 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning
SAT '09 Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Automatic abstraction without counterexamples
TACAS'03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems
SAT'08 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Theory and applications of satisfiability testing
Boosting minimal unsatisfiable core extraction
Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design
A scalable algorithm for minimal unsatisfiable core extraction
SAT'06 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
Towards efficient MUS extraction
AI Communications - 18th RCRA International Workshop on “Experimental evaluation of algorithms for solving problems with combinatorial explosion”
Efficient SAT solving under assumptions
SAT'12 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
On efficient computation of variable MUSes
SAT'12 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
Aggregating conditionally lexicographic preferences on multi-issue domains
CP'12 Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming
Formula preprocessing in MUS extraction
TACAS'13 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems
Core minimization in SAT-based abstraction
Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe
SAT'13 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
Factoring out assumptions to speed up MUS extraction
SAT'13 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
Improving glucose for incremental SAT solving with assumptions: application to MUS extraction
SAT'13 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
MUStICCa: MUS extraction with interactive choice of candidates
SAT'13 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing
Efficient generation of small interpolants in CNF
CAV'13 Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Computer Aided Verification
Minimal sets over monotone predicates in boolean formulae
CAV'13 Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Computer Aided Verification
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Various verification techniques are based on SAT's capability to identify a small, or even minimal, unsatisfiable core in case the formula is unsatisfiable, i.e., a small subset of the clauses that are unsatisfiable regardless of the rest of the formula. In most cases it is not the core itself that is being used, rather it is processed further in order to check which clauses from a preknown set of Interesting Constraints (where each constraint is modeled with a conjunction of clauses) participate in the proof. The problem of minimizing the participation of interesting constraints was recently coined high-level minimal unsatisfiable core by Nadel [15]. Two prominent examples of verification techniques that need such small cores are 1) abstraction-refinement model-checking techniques, which use the core in order to identify the state variables that will be used for refinement (smaller number of such variables in the core implies that more state variables can be replaced with free inputs in the abstract model), and 2) assumption minimization, where the goal is to minimize the usage of environment assumptions in the proof, because these assumptions have to be proved separately. We propose seven improvements to the recent solution given in [15], which together result in an overall reduction of 55% in run time and 73% in the size of the resulting core, based on our experiments with hundreds of industrial test cases. The optimized procedure is also better empirically than the assumptions-based minimization technique.