1 / 9

Propositional SAT

Propositional SAT. The search for a model of a given proposition. Propositional Logic. ATOM: set of propositional atoms P,Q,... Boolean operators: ¬, or, and etc. Most used: clauses, see Def. 2.7.1 Literal: atom or negated atom Clause, examples: c = {P, ¬Q,¬R}, d = {A}

dasha
Download Presentation

Propositional SAT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Propositional SAT The search for a model of a given proposition

  2. Propositional Logic • ATOM: set of propositional atoms P,Q,... • Boolean operators: ¬, or, and etc. • Most used: clauses, see Def. 2.7.1 • Literal: atom or negated atom • Clause, examples: c = {P, ¬Q,¬R}, d = {A} • Notation: c\Q = {P,¬R}, d\A = {} etc. • Clause set C

  3. Idea: a partial interpretation can make a clause set false • Partial mapping I: ATOM - - -> {0,1} • I(¬p) = I(p) provided I(p) is defined • I({L1 ,…,Lk}) = 1 if some I(Li) = 1, = 0 if allI(Li) = 0, undefined otherwise • I(C) = 1 if I(c) = 1 for all c in C = 0 if I(c) = 0 for some c in C undefined otherwise

  4. Extending partial interpretations • I2 extends I1 if I2(p) = I1(p) for all p in ATOM such that I1(p) is defined • Extensions preserves truth and falsity of clauses (but not undefinedness, of course!) • For all p in ATOM and clause sets C, partial interpretation I can be extended to a model of C iff either I[p:=0] or I[p:=1] can be extended to a model of C (maybe both)

  5. Naive algorithm, example Clause set (unsatisfiable): {P1,Q1, A}, {¬P1,Q1}, {P1, ¬Q1}, {¬P1, ¬Q1}, {P2,Q2, ¬A}, {¬P2,Q2}, {P2, ¬Q2}, {¬P2, ¬Q2} Atom order (arbitrary): P1,Q1, A, P2,Q2 Development on the blackboard

  6. Relevance analysis • If an atom is not used, you don’t have to consider an alternative truth value for it • Trivial example: clauses {P},{Q},{¬Q}, developed on the blackboard • Let C be a clause set not containing p. If I[p:=0] can’t be extended to a model of C, then neither I[p:=1] can.

  7. Forward reasoning: one literal rule • If I(c\p) = 0 for some p occurring in c, then there is at most one extension of I which is a model of c (and we know its value for p!) • Combined with relevancy analysis: c as above is a parent clause of p wrt I • Development of the running example on the blackboard

  8. Clause learning • It is a waste to throw away all the knowled-ge obtained by the forward reasoning. This knowledge can elegantly be recovered for future use (beware: this can also slow down the algorithm). • In the running example, {P2, ¬Q2} led to a contradiction with P2 = 0 and Q2 inferred by {P2,Q2, ¬A}: learn {P2, ¬A} by resolution!

More Related