Codex @codex  0

A Boolean formula in conjunctive normal form with at most two Boolean literals per Boolean clause. Shorter Boolean clauses are allowed. The Boolean satisfiability problem restricted to these Boolean formulas is 2-SAT.

2-satisfiability restricts SAT to CNF in which each Boolean clause has at most two Boolean literals. The example in Boolean satisfiability problem is therefore a 2-SAT instance. Unlike general SAT and 3-SAT, 2-SAT has a polynomial-time algorithm; its tractability concerns finding a satisfying assignment or deciding that none exists, not merely checking a candidate. 3-SAT allows up to three Boolean literals per Boolean clause and is NP-complete, even though it includes many individually easy instances such as this one.^[ref]

The key logical equivalence iswhere $a,b$ are Boolean literals. It expresses a two-Boolean literal Boolean clause as two logical implications. Representing these logical implications as edges in a directed graph gives a route to the polynomial-time algorithm. In the example, $C_2$ says both $x\to z$ and $\neg z\to \neg x$: enabling the feature requires its component, and an absent component excludes the feature.

A Boolean formula in conjunctive normal form with at most three Boolean literals per Boolean clause. A shorter nonempty Boolean clause can be padded by repeating a Boolean literal. The corresponding Boolean satisfiability problem is 3-SAT.

3-SAT is the Boolean satisfiability problem restricted to Boolean formulas in conjunctive normal form with at most three Boolean literals per Boolean clause. It is NP-complete. A nonempty short Boolean clause can be padded to three positions by repeating a Boolean literal, without changing satisfiability.

A Boolean formula is a finite expression built from Boolean variables and Boolean operations, equivalently a propositional formula with two-valued semantics. A Boolean valuation determines its truth value. In $(x\vee y)\wedge \neg x$, logical negation acts only on $x$, and the outer logical conjunction combines $x\vee y$ with $\neg x$. Occurrences of the same Boolean variable share one truth value. The Boolean satisfiability problem asks whether some Boolean valuation makes the Boolean formula true.

A finite game represented succinctly by propositional logic. Each player controls a disjoint collection of Boolean variables and chooses their truth values. Together those choices determine a Boolean valuation. A player's goal is a propositional formula, with payoff one if satisfied and zero otherwise. The control sets normally form a set partition of all variables.

A pure strategy strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium if every unsatisfied player remains unsatisfied after every change to that player's controlled variables. Checking a candidate can therefore require solving a Boolean satisfiability problem, even though evaluating its current payoffs is easy.

The Boolean satisfiability problem asks whether a Boolean formula has an assignment making it true. A complete assignment is a Boolean valuation: it gives every Boolean variable a truth value, consistently at all occurrences. A satisfying assignment, also called a model of a Boolean formula, makes the entire Boolean formula true. A solver's answer SAT asserts that at least one satisfying assignment exists; UNSAT asserts that the input is an unsatisfiable Boolean formula. These are statements about existence, rather than the truth value under one particular Boolean valuation.

For conjunctive normal form, or CNF, writeEach Boolean literal $\ell$ is a Boolean variable or its logical negation. Each Boolean clause uses inclusive logical disjunction: one true Boolean literal suffices. The outer logical conjunction requires every Boolean clause to succeed under the same Boolean valuation. Choosing a different Boolean valuation for each Boolean clause would answer a different question.

Consider the original three-Boolean variable exampleAt the Boolean valuation $(x,y,z)=(0,1,0)$, the Boolean literals in $C_1$ have values $(0,1)$, those in $C_2$ have values $(1,0)$, and those in $C_3$ have values $(0,1)$. Every Boolean clause therefore has truth value one, so $F$ has truth value one: this is a satisfying assignment.

The complete truth table has $2^3=8$ Boolean valuations. Exactly two are satisfying assignments: $(0,1,0)$ and $(1,0,1)$. In particular, $(1,1,1)$ satisfies the first two Boolean clauses but falsifies the third, so satisfying most Boolean clauses does not suffice for SAT. That different objective belongs to maximum satisfiability.

A short proof of completeness avoids listing all eight rows. If $x=0$, the Boolean clause $C_1$ forces $y=1$, after which $C_3$ forces $z=0$; $C_2$ is already true. If $x=1$, $C_2$ forces $z=1$, after which $C_3$ forces $y=0$; $C_1$ is already true. These two cases exhaust the truth values of $x$ and produce precisely the two satisfying assignments above.

Verifying a satisfying assignment and finding a satisfying assignment are different tasks. Given a candidate, evaluate the Boolean formula once; finding a candidate requires choosing compatible truth values across all its Boolean clauses. The Cook-Levin theorem says that general SAT is NP-complete, even though a proposed satisfying assignment is efficiently checkable. Its proof encodes a bounded nondeterministic computation as a Boolean formula whose satisfying assignments describe accepting computations. Stephen A. Cook's 1971 paper established this connection between computational complexity theory and propositional logic.^[ref]

A concrete use is checking finite configuration rules. Let $x$ mean that an optional feature is enabled, $y$ that a fallback is selected, and $z$ that the feature's required component is installed. Require a feature or fallback, require the component whenever the feature is enabled, and forbid using the fallback with that component. Logical implication rewrites the second rule $x\to z$ as $\neg x\vee z$; De Morgan's laws rewrite the third rule $\neg (y\wedge z)$ as $\neg y\vee \neg z$. Their logical conjunction is exactly $F$, so its two satisfying assignments give the two allowed configurations. The usefulness of SAT lies in expressing local rules uniformly while demanding one globally consistent Boolean valuation. The conclusion concerns exactly these encoded rules.

A formal verification method that encodes a bounded execution and a violated specification as a Boolean satisfiability problem. A satisfying assignment yields a counterexample. For infinite-path properties, a lasso path can finitely represent a repeated execution. Failure to find a counterexample at one finite bound alone does not prove an unbounded property.^[ref]

The class of decision problems whose complements belong to NP. Equivalently, negative instances admit polynomially bounded witnesses verifiable in polynomial time. A problem is co-NP-complete when it is in co-NP and every problem in co-NP has a polynomial-time reduction to it. Unsatisfiability of a propositional formula is a basic example: its complement is the NP-complete Boolean satisfiability problem.

Maximum satisfiability asks for a truth assignment maximizing the number of true clauses of a conjunctive normal form formula. The Boolean satisfiability problem asks whether all its clauses can be made true. Binary clause indicators give an integer programming formulation, and the literal-frequency greedy approximation for MAX-SAT guarantees at least half the optimum. Counts of clauses, rather than multiplicities of repeated literals within one clause, are relevant to this objective.

A partial Boolean assignment gives truth values to some of a Boolean formula's Boolean variables. An extension is a complete Boolean valuation agreeing on the assigned Boolean variables. In CNF, a Boolean clause containing a true assigned Boolean literal is already satisfied; a Boolean clause whose every Boolean literal is assigned false rules out all extensions. A Boolean clause with no true assigned Boolean literal and at least one unassigned Boolean variable is unresolved. An unresolved Boolean clause need not have a compatible extension with the other Boolean clauses.

For $F$ in Boolean satisfiability problem, setting $x=y=0$ already falsifies $C_1$, so both choices of $z$ can be discarded. Setting only $x=0$ leaves $C_1$ unresolved and forces $y=1$ if a satisfying assignment is to survive; then $C_3$ forces $z=0$. Branching on an unassigned Boolean variable into its two truth values and discarding branches with a false Boolean clause is sound: every satisfying assignment follows one branch and cannot extend a false Boolean clause. If all branches are eliminated, the original Boolean formula is an unsatisfiable Boolean formula.

Let $t_k\in \{0,1\}$ encode the truth value of $X_k$. For a Boolean literal $\ell$, write $L_{\ell }(t)=t_k$ if $\ell =X_k$ and $L_{\ell }(t)=1-t_k$ if $\ell ={\overline{X}}_k$. A clause is true precisely when the sum of its literal values is at least one. Thus the integer programming formulation of satisfiability is the feasibility problemwith objective zero. Every feasible binary vector gives a satisfying assignment of the Boolean satisfiability problem, and conversely. An empty clause gives $0\ge 1$ and hence infeasibility.

For maximum satisfiability, introduce binary variables $q_i$ marking clauses selected as satisfied and solveA false clause forces $q_i=0$, while a true clause permits $q_i=1$. At an optimum every permitted $q_i$ is one, since increasing it improves the objective without affecting another constraint. Therefore the objective is exactly the maximum number of simultaneously true clauses. Repeated literals cause no difficulty, and a clause containing both signs of a variable is always true.

For the literal-frequency greedy approximation for MAX-SAT, keep only clauses not already satisfied and remove literals made false. Count occurrence in clauses, rather than multiplicity within a clause. At a step let $a$ be the number of current clauses containing the chosen literal $z$, and $b$ the number containing its opposite $\overline{z}$. Since $z$ has maximum clause frequency among all remaining literals, $b\le a$.

Setting $z$ true permanently satisfies exactly the $a$ clauses containing it. Some other clauses may become empty and are then permanently lost. Every newly empty clause previously contained $\overline{z}$, so their number $d$ satisfiesA clause containing both signs is satisfied and cannot be one of the lost clauses. Repeat this accounting at every step. Satisfied clauses are removed, so no success is counted twice; each lost nonempty original clause becomes empty at exactly one step. If $G$ is the total number satisfied and $D$ the number of initially nonempty clauses lost, summing the inequalities gives $D\le G$. Every initially nonempty clause eventually falls into one of these two classes. Writing their number as $N_{+}$, we getEven an optimal assignment can satisfy at most $N_{+}$ clauses. ConsequentlyThus Greedy is a $1/2$-approximation in the convention stated in the question. The proof also covers initial empty clauses by excluding them from $N_{+}$; they are unsatisfiable for every algorithm.

The Cook-Levin theorem states that the Boolean satisfiability problem is NP-complete under polynomial-time many-one reductions. Membership in NP follows by guessing an assignment and evaluating the formula in time polynomial in its description length.

For hardness, let $L\in \mathrm{NP}$ have a deterministic polynomial-time verifier $M(x,y)$, with a polynomial witness-length bound. Use a fixed polynomial certificate length: a short certificate is encoded by its length followed by padded data, and the verifier checks this encoding. Pad the computation to exactly $T=T(|x|)$ steps, with accepting and rejecting states absorbing. Enlarge $T$ polynomially if necessary to cover input/witness initialization. A standard polynomial slowdown permits a single-tape Turing machine, so it suffices to handle that model.

Encode a tape cell by a fixed number of bits recording its alphabet symbol and either no head or the head's finite control state. Starting with one head, a cell's next label depends only on its own label and the two neighboring labels: a head can change the symbol where it sits and can enter only a neighbor. Each such finite local function has a constant-size Boolean circuit. The initial row fixes $x$, blanks and the starting head, leaving only the witness bits as Boolean circuit inputs. There are $O(T)$ relevant cells with blank margins beyond every possible head position, and $T$ updates. Repeating these local Boolean circuits produces a Boolean circuit $C_x(y)$ of size $O(T^2)$, with an output detecting an accepting head in the final row. The construction is computable in polynomial time. Induction on rows shows that every assignment to $y$ produces exactly the verifier's valid computation; invalid local encodings can be assigned arbitrary Boolean circuit behavior because they never arise from the valid initial row.

Convert this Boolean circuit to conjunctive normal form using a Tseitin transformation. Introduce one variable for each wire, and encode each gate output $z$ by:

Unit clauses fix constant sources and assert the final output. Each input assignment has exactly one extension to its gate values, so the resulting formula $F_x$ is satisfiable precisely when some witness makes $M(x,y)$ accept. It has $O(T^2)$ clauses of bounded length and is produced in polynomial time. ThusThis proof also gives hardness for clauses of at most three literals, without needing a separate satisfiability assumption.

This is Ladner's theorem. Assume $\mathbf{P}\ne \mathbf{NP}$ and let $S$ be the Boolean satisfiability problem. Enumerate all clocked polynomial-time deterministic machines as $D_0,D_1,\dots$ and all clocked polynomial-time candidate reductions as $R_0,R_1,\dots$. A standard delayed-diagonalization schedule gives a nondecreasing, unbounded, polynomial-time computable function $s:\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{N}$ that increases only by one. DefineThe schedule alternates two requirements. At even stage $2j$, it holds $s$ fixed while searching successively larger finite sets of strings for an $x$ on which $D_j(x)$ disagrees with membership in $L$; after finding one it increments $s$. At odd stage $2j+1$, it searches for an $x$ such thatand then increments $s$. Length and simulation budgets are increased slowly enough that each finite search is eventually exhaustive but computing $s(n)$ still takes polynomial time. This is achieved, for example, by permitting only $n$ simulation steps and searches on strings of logarithmic length before deciding $s(n+1)$.

Every stage must finish. If an even stage $2j$ remained forever, then $s$ would eventually be a fixed even number, so $L$ and $S$ would differ on only finitely many strings. If $D_j$ decided $L$, those finitely many exceptions could be hardwired to decide $S$ in P, contradicting $\mathbf{P}\ne \mathbf{NP}$. If an odd stage $2j+1$ remained forever, then $s$ would eventually be odd and $L$ would be finite. A correct polynomial-time many-one reduction $R_j$ from $S$ to $L$ would again put $S$ in P. Thus every $D_j$ fails to decide $L$, and every $R_j$ fails to reduce $S$ to $L$.

Finally, $L\in \mathbf{NP}$: compute $s(|x|)$ and, when it is even, use the usual polynomial-time certificate for satisfiability. Hence

For the intended finite representation, put $m=|S|<\infty$. For each $T\subseteq S$, form the mintermA Boolean valuation satisfies ${\chi }_T$ exactly when its selected subset is $T$. Therefore the weighted formula utility representationrepresents $u$ exactly: at the Boolean valuation for $T$, only that minterm contributes, with weight $u(T)$. This proves completeness and the bound of $2^{|S|}$ rules simultaneously. Zero-weight rules may be omitted. The bound counts rules; writing each minterm also requires $O(m)$ symbols in Big O notation.

For the computational question, assume rule weights are rational numbers encoded in binary. This makes exact equality of sums a finite computational task. With this conventional encoding, equivalence of weighted formula utility representations is co-NP-complete.

For membership, the complement has a short witness: a Boolean valuation on the variables occurring in either rule base. Evaluate each propositional formula, sum the weights of satisfied rules, and accept the witness if the sums differ. Propositional formula evaluation takes polynomial time. Exact sums of binary rational numbers also have polynomially bounded bit lengths: the product of their denominators has bit length at most the sum of the input denominator lengths. Thus non-equivalence lies in NP, and equivalence lies in co-NP.

For hardness, take a Boolean satisfiability problem instance $\theta$ and constructThe first utility function is one at satisfying Boolean valuations and zero elsewhere, while the second is always zero. ConsequentlyThe unsatisfiable Boolean formula problem is co-NP-complete, as the complement of the NP-complete Boolean satisfiability problem. The construction is a polynomial-time reduction, proving hardness even with the single weight $1$.

Two qualifications matter in the literal wording. First, unrestricted real weights have no specified finite encoding, so a standard bit-complexity classification needs the encoding assumption above. Second, the problem says only that $S$ is nonempty. If infinite $S$ is allowed while rule bases remain finite, its completeness claim is false. For $S=\mathbb{N}$, take $u(T)=1$ when $T$ is infinite and $u(T)=0$ when $T$ is finite. A finite rule base mentions only a finite subset $F$ of the variables. The Boolean valuations for $\varnothing$ and $\mathbb{N}\setminus F$ agree on all those variables but have different required values. No such rule base represents this $u$. Thus the construction answers the intended finite-set question and identifies the missing hypothesis in the unrestricted statement.

A satisfying assignment is a complete Boolean valuation $v$ for which a Boolean formula $F$ has truth value one, written $v\models F$. The notation describes a relation between the Boolean valuation and the Boolean formula. For the example in Boolean satisfiability problem, $(0,1,0)$ is a model of a Boolean formula $F$, whereas $(0,0,0)$ is not. SAT asks for existence of at least one satisfying assignment, rather than for every Boolean valuation to work; the latter condition makes $F$ a tautology.

An approach to automated planning that constructs a Boolean satisfiability problem for a bounded planning horizon, solves it and decodes a satisfying assignment into a plan. A typical encoding has time-indexed action occurrences and planning fluents, initial and goal clauses, action precondition axioms, state-transition constraints and action exclusion axioms. Sequential and parallel encodings have different notions of a step.

Henry Kautz and Bart Selman introduced planning as satisfiability in their 1992 paper.^[ref]

By Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund Clarke and Yunshan Zhu. Published in Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1579, pp. 193–207.

Author-hosted text: cca.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/papers/BiereCimattiClarkeZhu-TACAS99.pdf

Introduces bounded model checking by translating a search for a bounded counterexample into a Boolean satisfiability problem. Section 2 explains unrolling and loop closure through a worked example; §3 states infinite-path semantics; §4 gives the encoding; §5 discusses bounds.