Boolean Satisfiability

Modern SAT solvers combine a rich repertoire of proof rules with sophisticated strategies that determine when and how to apply them. Often, the internal implementations are tightly coupled to particular strategies, making it inconvenient to define new strategies without changing solver internals. We present Tactix, a proof-producing sequential CDCL solver that incorporates a wide range of techniques in state-of-the-art solvers with a clean separation of proof rules from solving strategies. This separation enables a public interface through which users can invoke particular techniques, observe their effects, and program a wide range of solving strategies. The default strategy of Tactix is programmable over this interface and outperforms state-of-the-art solvers on benchmarks from the 2024--2026 SAT Competitions. We also use the interface to develop novel strategies tailored to challenging benchmarks from two application domains, which led to performance gains over strong baselines. We intend Tactix to serve as an infrastructure for designing and evaluating novel solving strategies. Finally, we also present a self-study of the AI-assisted development process behind Tactix.

The Antibandwidth and Cyclic Antibandwidth problems are NP-hard graph labeling problems that aim to maximize the minimum (cyclic) distance between labels assigned to adjacent vertices. Extensive research on these problems has resulted in a variety of mathematical formulations and computational approaches. However, their minimum span perspective, in which a prescribed minimum (cyclic) distance is fixed and the objective is to minimize the label span, has received comparatively little attention. In this paper, we consider this complementary perspective by introducing the Minimum Span Antibandwidth/Cyclic Antibandwidth Labeling (MSABL/MSCABL) problems and developing a unified Boolean Satisfiability (SAT)-based framework for solving them. The SAT-based framework formulates MSABL/MSCABL as a sequence of decision problems and exploits their monotonicity to accelerate the search process. We also consider two SAT solving strategies, parallel and incremental SAT solving: the former examines multiple candidate spans concurrently, while the latter reuses a single SAT instance while progressively restricting the label domain. The proposed approaches are evaluated on benchmark instances from the Harwell-Boeing Sparse Matrix Collection and compared with CPLEXCP, CPLEXMIP, and Gurobi. The results show that SAT-based approaches are highly competitive in solution quality, with the parallel approach performing best overall for MSCABL and the incremental approach for MSABL. With the no-hole constraint, they remain competitive with CPLEXCP and significantly outperform CPLEXMIP and Gurobi, particularly for MSCABL. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of SAT solving as an exact approach for MSABL and MSCABL.

We present the first mechanised formalisation of Romanov's Triplet Logic (TLS) in the Rocq proof assistant. TLS is a combinatorial framework originally motivated by Boolean satisfiability, based on triplet structures and a filter that we call Simple Vertex Intersection (SVI). We formalise the core of TLS, including its translation from 3-CNF, the clearing procedure, and the SVI algorithm. For the well-formed sliding-window fragment, we prove explicit polynomial-time bounds for the filter stages and verify the translation and intersection operations. Our main contribution is a precise correctness boundary: for general formulas, SVI non-emptiness is necessary but not sufficient for satisfiability; for aligned structures, we prove a full bi-implication, extended to systems of structures. We also formalise the grouped-window translation and provide a formal counterexample to its completeness. We introduce VFR (Verified Filter for Romanov's triplet logic), an extracted OCaml prototype that implements a verified decision procedure for the sliding-window fragment and a sound filter for general 3-CNF, with a Python runtime and Docker packaging. Benchmarks corroborate the predicted behaviour, and the complete toolchain is available as a curated Zenodo artifact. The Rocq development comprises over 23,000 lines of code, with 424 proved lemmas and no unproved assumptions.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process. Existing approaches that leverage verbalized CoTs to monitor reasoning correctness, however, largely evaluate the semantic correctness or consistency of individual intermediate steps, rather than how the reasoning process evolves across the trace. As a result, failures distributed across the reasoning trajectory, rather than those localized to a single incorrect step, remain comparatively underexplored. Furthermore, verbalized CoTs need not faithfully reflect the model's internal reasoning, motivating analyses that do not treat individual statements as literal accounts of internal computation. In this work, we therefore ask whether the dynamics of visible CoT can be leveraged to systematically distinguish successful from failed reasoning without assuming such semantic faithfulness. We study a range of LLMs on verifiable Boolean satisfiability tasks with variable complexity, enabling controlled comparisons near each model's capability frontier. Tagging CoT sentences by reasoning function reveals premature verification collapse on SAT problems: incorrect traces enter clause checking earlier, repeat similar operations, and finalize sooner. On UNSAT problems, models presumptuously move towards incorrect SAT conclusions, checking candidate assignments rather than deriving contradictions across constructed cases. Subsequently, a targeted proof-search prompt intervention raises Llama3-70B accuracy from 13.3% to 85%, correcting 84.6% of these errors. These results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.

LLM constraint reasoners are often evaluated near the random-SAT phase transition, confounding density and solver hardness. We test instance-level transfer while near-matching clause density. At aligned size bins, with near-matched density and matched maximum clause width, we compare proof-hard expander-Tseitin and proof-easy ladder-Tseitin formulas, pigeonhole anchors, and density-mismatched controls. Theory separates their resolution hardness; a solver-specific Glucose mean-conflict proxy differs by up to $51\times$, and five other solvers preserve the direction. Across three included models (243 instances each; a fourth is excluded for abstention), the near-matched-density accuracy gaps range from $-32$ to $+20$ points, with a pooled gap of $+1.7$ points ($p=0.74$) and a wrong-signed correctness-versus-conflict association ($r=+0.15$). A proof-preserving relabeling lowers accuracy in all five clusters for one model (mean $-93$ points) but not another, exposing model-surface sensitivity. In a preregistered extension, provider-reported completion-token spend does not consistently increase with the proxy after accounting for formula length and censoring. At 16k, the reasoning model spends more on proof-easy matched formulas and exhausts its budget on the solver-easiest UNSAT family; the 32k C1 gap is absent. These scoped dissociations concern verdict accuracy and observed token spend, not certificate solving, exact proof length, or allocation efficiency.

We report on CoreForge, an experience in using large language models (LLMs) to build an unweighted MaxSAT solver from research papers rather than from an existing solver codebase. The project focuses on unsatisfiability-based MaxSAT algorithms and follows an iterative workflow that combines paper discussions with ChatGPT, implementation through Codex prompts, and repeated LLM-assisted code audits and revisions. Although the codebase implements several algorithms and solver components, our evaluation focuses on configurations that combine core-guided optimization, lightweight preprocessing, core minimization, integration with integer linear optimization backends, and a new core-sequence lookahead approach. Our experience suggests that LLMs can support solver implementation from papers, while requiring external validation, benchmarking, and human guidance. In our experiments, fuzzing and MaxSAT Evaluation instances did not reveal wrong answers in the tested configurations, although performance remains below the best hand-engineered MaxSAT solvers. We summarize what worked, what remained difficult, and the lessons for future LLM-assisted solver development.

SAT solvers settle combinatorial problems beyond the reach of interactive theorem provers and produce LRAT certificates for independent verification. We present LRAT-Catcher, a standalone, general-purpose tool that imports a DIMACS formula together with an LRAT certificate into Lean 4 as a theorem. LRAT-Catcher runs the formally verified LRAT checker from Lean core as compiled native code via reflection. This scales to instances where Mathlib's explicit proof-term import exhausts memory. LRAT-Catcher also composes cube-and-conquer solving runs entirely inside Lean. Per-cube refutations are combined with a cover-completeness certificate, itself an LRAT proof, into a single unsatisfiability theorem. Verified encodings connect CNF-level results to the original combinatorial problems. We evaluate the tool against Mathlib's proof-term import and the external checker cake_lpr on establishing the Schur number S(4) = 44 and the Ramsey number R(4,4) = 18 as Lean theorems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that implicitly reduce to Boolean satisfiability (SAT), yet their reasoning ability on SAT remains unclear. We present a systematic study of LLMs on 2-SAT and 3-SAT, together with two canonical reductions, Vertex Cover and discrete 3D packing, to probe representation-invariant reasoning. We first evaluate models using conventional metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1, as well as the SAT phase-transition setting. We find that these metrics can be misleading: many models obtain high scores by over-predicting satisfiable formulas, fail to reproduce the classical easy-hard-easy signature around the 3-SAT threshold, and degrade sharply as the number of variables grows. To address this problem, we introduce a paired-formula protocol based on minimally different satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances, together with Accurate Differentiation Rate (ADR), which requires both members of each pair to be classified correctly. ADR separates reasoning-oriented models from heuristic ones and correlates with witness validity. Beyond CNF, we test cross-representation consistency by converting CNF to Vertex Cover and 3-SAT to discrete 3D packing. Model decisions on CNF and on the corresponding graph or packing instances agree for most models on more than 80 percent of instances, suggesting stable decision rules across representations. Overall, our results show that SAT is a conservative probe for LLM reasoning, and that paired evaluation with ADR provides a more faithful and representation-robust assessment than conventional metrics.

Optimization problems such as the NP-complete 3-SAT provide an important benchmark for the difficult task of finding ground-states in strongly correlated many-body systems with rugged energy landscapes. The study of random 3-SAT problems as Ising spin Hamiltonians in statistical physics has yielded major insights including the existence of a satisfiability phase transition, and the prediction of a critical parameter line of particularly hard instances. Yet, progress on solving those instances has been scarce for several decades. Here, introducing the Target-SAT (TSAT) algorithm, we roughly triple the tractable problem sizes in the hardest regime, with an even greater improvement in a vast range of neighboring regions. By leveraging statistical information hidden in the combinatorial constraints of the problem, TSAT is actively guided in its stochastic local search toward a target within the relevant parameter space. Our analysis also explains why established local search algorithms are limited to relatively small system sizes due to a vast low-energy trap. Furthermore, we characterize the aforementioned critical line in terms of a dominant additional complexity barrier, whose exponential scaling is quickly overcome by TSAT only in the surrounding parameter space. With TSAT, the lead in solving the hardest known random satisfiability problems returns to the realm of stochastic local search algorithms.

Despite the effectiveness of Cube-and-Conquer (C&C) for solving challenging Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problems, no prior work has shown that transformer-based models can learn effective cubing heuristics. We introduce a neuro-symbolic post-training framework for this task. We design an MCTS-based data curation pipeline that uses symbolic heuristics to explore splitting decisions over SAT competition formulas, producing preference data grounded in solver statistics and augmented with reasoning traces from a teacher model. Our two-stage post-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by direct preference optimization (DPO), enables a 4B-parameter model to achieve a pass@5 score of 53 on 100 SAT competition benchmarks, surpassing frontier LLMs such as Claude-Sonnet-4 (50) and matching the best symbolic heuristic (53). Ablations show that SFT alone improves pass@5 from 46 to 51, with DPO adding 2 additional benchmarks; an entropy/agreement ablation on realized first-cube decisions further shows that SFT, not DPO, accounts for the root-level decision diversity that produces complementary per-run coverage over deterministic symbolic methods. This demonstrates that transformers can be trained to make effective cubing decisions in a domain traditionally dominated by symbolic methods.

We present a new algorithm for deciding formula entailment in orthologic (a sound approximation of classical logic) that avoids the costly preprocessing phase of prior implementations while retaining the same $\mathcal{O}(n^2(1+|A|))$ worst-case complexity. We then introduce a family of synthetic SAT benchmarks based on the observation that, for any formula $φ$, the equivalence $φ\leftrightarrow \mathrm{NF}_{\mathrm{OL}}(φ)$ is a tautology whose Tseitin encoding yields unsatisfiable instances that are hard for state-of-the-art SAT solvers yet have short orthologic proofs. Applied to EPFL arithmetic circuits, our algorithm solves these instances efficiently while Kissat times out on a significant fraction. Finally, we show that using orthologic normalization as a preprocessing step can improve SAT solving time on some hard problems.

Discrete variables are common in many applications, such as probabilistic reasoning, planning and explainable AI. When symbolic reasoning techniques are brought in to bear on these applications, a standard technique for handling discrete variables is to binarize them into Boolean variables to allow the use of Boolean computational machinery such as SAT solvers. This technique can face both computational and semantical challenges though. In this work, we develop a native SAT solver for discrete logic, which is a direct extension of Boolean logic in which variables can take arbitrary values. Our proposed solver has a similar design to Boolean SAT solvers, with ingredients such as unit resolution and clause learning but ones that operate natively on discrete variables. We illustrate the merits of the developed SAT solver by comparing it empirically to CSP solvers applied to discrete CNFs, to Boolean SAT solver applied to binarized CNFs, and to some hybrid solvers.

Graph neural networks have been widely used in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) tasks to learn structural information from SAT formulas. The goal of these studies is to solve SAT instances or to enhance SAT solvers, including tasks such as unsat-core prediction. However, most existing approaches model a SAT formula as a bipartite graph or a directed acyclic graph, which are less direct in capturing clause-level and higher-order interactions among literals and clauses. Moreover, these approaches are limited in modeling intrinsic polarity-related properties of SAT, such as the complementary relationship between the positive and negative literals of a variable. To address these limitations, we propose a polarity-aware representation learning framework over clause-literal hypergraphs. We model SAT formulas as clause-literal hypergraphs augmented with a clause incidence graph to capture higher-order structural interactions. We then introduce a polarity-aware decomposition mechanism that separates variable representations into polarity invariant and equivariant components, explicitly modeling the relationship between positive and negative literals, with the resulting literal representations propagated along the hypergraph structure. We further incorporate a polarity-inversion consistency regularization to reinforce polarity-consistent representations during training. Experimental results on multiple SAT datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Foundational optimization embeddings have recently emerged as powerful pre-trained representations for mixed-integer programming (MIP) problems. These embeddings were shown to enable cross-domain transfer and reduce reliance on solver-generated labels. In this work, we investigate whether such representations generalize beyond optimization to decision problems, focusing on Boolean satisfiability (SAT). We adapt the foundational optimization architecture to SAT by mapping CNF formulas into the same bipartite constraint-variable graph representation used for MIPs. This allows direct reuse of the pre-trained embedding model without architectural changes or supervised fine-tuning. Our results show that these embeddings capture structural regularities in SAT instances and support unsupervised tasks such as instance clustering and distribution identification. We demonstrate, for the first time, that foundational optimization embeddings can transfer to constraint satisfaction domains. Our findings is a step toward a unified representational framework for both optimization and decision problems.

VeriTrans is a reliability-first ML system that compiles natural-language requirements into solver-ready logic with validator-gated reliability. The pipeline integrates an instruction-tuned NL$\!\to\!$PL translator, round-trip reconstruction (PL$\!\to\!$NL) used as a high-precision acceptance gate, and canonical PL$\!\to\!$CNF compilation, all executed via fixed API configuration (temperature$=0$; fine-tuning runs use seed$=42$) and per-item artifact logging (prompts, outputs, hashes) to support auditability and replay-driven debugging. On SatBench (2{,}100 specifications), VeriTrans achieves 94.46% SAT/UNSAT correctness and 87.73% median round-trip similarity. Compact fine-tuning on 100--150 curated examples improves fidelity by about 1--1.5,pp without increasing latency (mean 25.8,s/spec on our 201-spec runtime subset). A thresholded acceptance policy on the round-trip score exposes a reliability--coverage knob: at $τ{=}75$, roughly 68% of items are retained with $\sim$94% correctness on the accepted set. Validator overhead contributes $<15\%$ of end-to-end runtime, and all prompts/responses and timing metadata are logged to enable replay-driven debugging and regression testing. By separating learned translation from symbolic verification and enforcing deterministic, validator-gated acceptance, VeriTrans turns NL$\!\to\!$logic front-ends into auditable, reproducible components for reliability-critical workflows.

Cutting rectangular items from stock sheets to satisfy demands while minimizing waste is a central manufacturing task. The Two-Dimensional Single Stock Size Cutting Stock Problem (2D-CSSP) generalizes bin packing by requiring multiple copies of each item type, which causes a strong combinatorial blow-up. We present a SAT-based framework where item types are expanded by demand, each copy has a sheet-assignment variable and non-overlap constraints are activated only for copies assigned to the same sheet. We also introduce an infeasible-orientation elimination rule that fixes rotation variables when only one orientation can fit the sheet. For minimizing the number of sheets, we compare three approaches: non-incremental SAT with binary search, incremental SAT with clause reuse across iterations and weighted partial MaxSAT. On the Cui--Zhao benchmark suite, our best SAT configurations certify two to three times more instances as provably optimal and achieve lower optimality gaps than OR-Tools, CPLEX and Gurobi. The relative ranking among SAT approaches depends on rotation: incremental SAT is strongest without rotation, while non-incremental SAT is more effective when rotation increases formula size.

Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem, the first problem proven to be NP-complete, has become a fundamental challenge in computational complexity, with widespread applications in optimization and verification across many domains. Despite significant algorithmic advances over the past two decades, the performance of SAT solvers has improved at a limited pace. Notably, the 2025 competition winner shows only about a 2X improvement over the 2006 winner in SAT Competition performance after nearly 20 years of effort. This paper introduces GaloisSAT, a novel hybrid GPU-CPU SAT solver that integrates a differentiable SAT solving engine powered by modern machine learning infrastructure on GPUs, followed by a traditional CDCL-based SAT solving stage on CPUs. GaloisSAT is benchmarked against the latest versions of state-of-the-art solvers, Kissat and CaDiCaL, using the SAT Competition 2024 benchmark suite. Results demonstrate substantial improvements in the official SAT Competition metric PAR-2 (penalized average runtime with a timeout of 5,000 seconds and a penalty factor of 2). Specifically, GaloisSAT achieves an 8.41X speedup in the satisfiable category and a 1.29X speedup in the unsatisfiable category compared to the strongest baselines.

Finding good branching orders is key to solving SAT problems efficiently, but finding such branching orders is a difficult problem. Using a learning based approach to predict a good branching order before solving, therefore, has potential. In this paper, we investigate predicting branching orders using graph neural networks as a preprocessing step to conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) SAT solvers. We show that there are significant gains to be made in existing CDCL SAT solvers by providing a good initial branching. Further, we provide three labeling methods to find such initial branching orders in a tractable way. Finally, we train a graph neural network to predict these branching orders and show through our evaluations that a GNN-initialized ordering yields significant speedups on random 3-CNF and pseudo-industrial benchmarks, with generalization capabilities to instances much larger than the training set. However, we also find that the predictions fail at speeding up more difficult and industrial instances. We attribute this to the solver's dynamic heuristics, which rapidly overwrite the provided initialization, and to the complexity of these instances, making GNN prediction hard.

We propose a novel parallel algorithm for decomposing hard CircuitSAT instances. The technique employs specialized constraints to partition an original SAT instance into a family of weakened formulas. Our approach is implemented as a parameterized parallel algorithm, where adjusting the parameters allows efficient identification of high-quality decompositions, guided by hardness estimations computed in parallel. We demonstrate the algorithm's practical efficacy on challenging CircuitSAT instances, including those encoding Logical Equivalence Checking of Boolean circuits and preimage attacks on cryptographic hash functions.

In this paper we try to answer the question "What constitutes Sudoku difficulty rating across different Sudoku websites?" Using two distinct methods that can both solve every Sudoku puzzle, I propose two new metrics to characterize Sudoku difficulty. The first method is based on converting a Sudoku puzzle into its corresponding Satisfiability (SAT) problem. The first proposed metric is derived from SAT Clause Length Distribution which captures the structural complexity of a Sudoku puzzle including the number of given digits and the cells they are in. The second method simulates human Sudoku solvers by intertwining four popular Sudoku strategies within a backtracking algorithm called Nishio. The second metric is computed by counting the number of times Sudoku strategies are applied within the backtracking iterations of a randomized Nishio. Using these two metrics, I analyze more than a thousand Sudoku puzzles across five popular websites to characterize every difficulty level in each website. I evaluate the relationship between the proposed metrics and website-labeled difficulty levels using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, finding strong correlations for 4 out of 5 websites. I construct a universal rating system using a simple, unsupervised classifier based on the two proposed metrics. This rating system is capable of classifying both individual puzzles and entire difficulty levels from the different Sudoku websites into three categories - Universal Easy, Universal Medium, and Universal Hard - thereby enabling consistent difficulty mapping across Sudoku websites. The experimental results show that for 4 out of 5 Sudoku websites, the universal classification aligns well with website-labeled difficulty levels. Finally, I present an algorithm that can be used by early Sudoku practitioners to solve Sudoku puzzles.

Argumentation is an important cognitive activity that involves the scrutiny of arguments and counterarguments. When given an argument, it is desirable that its premises entail its claim, and that the premises and claim are consistent, and when given a pair of arguments, it is desirable to check whether one argument supports or attacks another. If the arguments are in natural language, then we could use methods for natural language inference, also known as recognizing textual entailment (RTE). The state-of-the-art RTE methods use machine learning and deep learning, but these are not explainable. An alternative approach which we investigate in this paper is to translate text into an abstract meaning representation (AMR) graph. For this we use a pre-trained AMR parser. We then translate the AMR graph into propositional logic and use a SAT solver for automated reasoning. In text, often common sense suggests that an entailment (or contradiction) relationship holds between a premise and a claim, but because different wordings are used, this is not identified from their logical representations. To address this, we introduce relaxation methods to allow replacement or forgetting of some propositions. Our experimental results show our approach performs well on three RTE datasets. The benefit of our approach is that we have a logical representation of premises and claims, and of the relaxations that are used to identify the entailment and contradiction relations.

We study a variation of the Stable Marriage problem, where every man and every woman express their preferences as preference lists which may be incomplete and contain ties. This problem is called the Stable Marriage problem with Ties and Incomplete preferences (SMTI). We consider three optimization variants of SMTI, Max Cardinality, Sex-Equal and Egalitarian, and empirically compare the following methods to solve them: Answer Set Programming, Constraint Programming, Integer Linear Programming. For Max Cardinality, we compare these methods with Local Search methods as well. We also empirically compare Answer Set Programming with Propositional Satisfiability, for SMTI instances.