A Simple and Flexible Way of Computing Small Unsatisfiable Cores in SAT Modulo Theories

Finding small unsatisfiable cores for SAT problems has recently received a lot of interest, mostly for its applications in formal verification. However, propositional logic is often not expressive enough for representing many interesting verification problems, which can be more naturally addressed in the framework of Satisfiability Modulo Theories, SMT. Surprisingly, the problem of finding unsatisfiable cores in SMT has received very little attention in the literature; in particular, we are not aware of any work aiming at producing small unsatisfiable cores in SMT. In this paper we present a novel approach to this problem. The main idea is to combine an SMT solver with an external propositional core extractor: the SMT solver produces the theory lemmas found during the search; the core extractor is then called on the boolean abstraction of the original SMT problem and of the theory lemmas. This results in an unsatisfiable core for the original SMT problem, once the remaining theory lemmas have been removed. The approach is conceptually interesting, since the SMT solver is used to dynamically lift the suitable amount of theory information to the boolean level, and it also has several advantages in practice. In fact, it is extremely simple to implement and to update, and it can be interfaced with every propositional core extractor in a plug-and-play manner, so that to benefit for free of all unsat-core reduction techniques which have been or will be made available. We have evaluated our approach by an extensive empirical test on SMT-LIB benchmarks, which confirms the validity and potential of this approach

Incrementally Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable Cores of QBFs via a Clause Group Solver API

We consider the incremental computation of minimal unsatisfiable cores (MUCs) of QBFs. To this end, we equipped our incremental QBF solver DepQBF with a novel API to allow for incremental solving based on clause groups. A clause group is a set of clauses which is incrementally added to or removed from a previously solved QBF. Our implementation of the novel API is related to incremental SAT solving based on selector variables and assumptions. However, the API entirely hides selector variables and assumptions from the user, which facilitates the integration of DepQBF in other tools. We present implementation details and, for the first time, report on experiments related to the computation of MUCs of QBFs using DepQBF's novel clause group API.Comment: (fixed typo), camera-ready version, 6-page tool paper, to appear in proceedings of SAT 2015, LNCS, Springe

QMusExt: A Minimal (Un)satisfiable Core Extractor for Quantified Boolean Formulas

In this paper, we present QMusExt, a tool for the extraction of minimal unsatisfiable sets (MUS) from quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) in prenex conjunctive normal form (PCNF). Our tool generalizes an efficient algorithm for MUS extraction from propositional formulas that analyses and rewrites resolution proofs generated by SAT solvers. In addition to extracting unsatisfiable cores from false formulas in PCNF, we apply QMusExt also to obtain satisfiable cores from Q-resolution proofs of true formulas in prenex disjunctive normal form (PDNF)

Using small MUSes to explain how to solve pen and paper puzzles

Pen and paper puzzles like Sudoku, Futoshiki and Skyscrapers are hugely popular. Solving such puzzles can be a trivial task for modern AI systems. However, most AI systems solve problems using a form of backtracking, while people try to avoid backtracking as much as possible. This means that existing AI systems do not output explanations about their reasoning that are meaningful to people. We present Demystify, a tool which allows puzzles to be expressed in a high-level constraint programming language and uses MUSes to allow us to produce descriptions of steps in the puzzle solving. We give several improvements to the existing techniques for solving puzzles with MUSes, which allow us to solve a range of significantly more complex puzzles and give higher quality explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of Demystify by comparing its results to documented strategies for solving a range of pen and paper puzzles by hand, showing that our technique can find many of the same explanations.Publisher PD

Understanding the QuickXPlain Algorithm: Simple Explanation and Formal Proof

In his seminal paper of 2004, Ulrich Junker proposed the QuickXPlain algorithm, which provides a divide-and-conquer computation strategy to find within a given set an irreducible subset with a particular (monotone) property. Beside its original application in the domain of constraint satisfaction problems, the algorithm has since then found widespread adoption in areas as different as model-based diagnosis, recommender systems, verification, or the Semantic Web. This popularity is due to the frequent occurrence of the problem of finding irreducible subsets on the one hand, and to QuickXPlain's general applicability and favorable computational complexity on the other hand. However, although (we regularly experience) people are having a hard time understanding QuickXPlain and seeing why it works correctly, a proof of correctness of the algorithm has never been published. This is what we account for in this work, by explaining QuickXPlain in a novel tried and tested way and by presenting an intelligible formal proof of it. Apart from showing the correctness of the algorithm and excluding the later detection of errors (proof and trust effect), the added value of the availability of a formal proof is, e.g., (i) that the workings of the algorithm often become completely clear only after studying, verifying and comprehending the proof (didactic effect), (ii) the shown proof methodology can be used as a guidance for proving other recursive algorithms (transfer effect), and (iii) the possibility of providing "gapless" correctness proofs of systems that rely on (results computed by) QuickXPlain, such as numerous model-based debuggers (completeness effect)

Safety Model Checking with Complementary Approximations

Formal verification techniques such as model checking, are becoming popular in hardware design. SAT-based model checking techniques such as IC3/PDR, have gained a significant success in hardware industry. In this paper, we present a new framework for SAT-based safety model checking, named Complementary Approximate Reachability (CAR). CAR is based on standard reachability analysis, but instead of maintaining a single sequence of reachable- state sets, CAR maintains two sequences of over- and under- approximate reachable-state sets, checking safety and unsafety at the same time. To construct the two sequences, CAR uses standard Boolean-reasoning algorithms, based on satisfiability solving, one to find a satisfying cube of a satisfiable Boolean formula, and one to provide a minimal unsatisfiable core of an unsatisfiable Boolean formula. We applied CAR to 548 hardware model-checking instances, and compared its performance with IC3/PDR. Our results show that CAR is able to solve 42 instances that cannot be solved by IC3/PDR. When evaluated against a portfolio that includes IC3/PDR and other approaches, CAR is able to solve 21 instances that the other approaches cannot solve. We conclude that CAR should be considered as a valuable member of any algorithmic portfolio for safety model checking