Encoding Redundancy for Satisfaction-Driven Clause Learning

Satisfaction-Driven Clause Learning (SDCL) is a recent SAT solving paradigm that aggressively trims the search space of possible truth assignments. To determine if the SAT solver is currently exploring a dispensable part of the search space, SDCL uses the so-called positive reduct of a formula: The positive reduct is an easily solvable propositional formula that is satisfiable if the current assignment of the solver can be safely pruned from the search space. In this paper, we present two novel variants of the positive reduct that allow for even more aggressive pruning. Using one of these variants allows SDCL to solve harder problems, in particular the well-known Tseitin formulas and mutilated chessboard problems. For the first time, we are able to generate and automatically check clausal proofs for large instances of these problems

The Challenge of Unifying Semantic and Syntactic Inference Restrictions

While syntactic inference restrictions don't play an important role for SAT, they are an essential reasoning technique for more expressive logics, such as first-order logic, or fragments thereof. In particular, they can result in short proofs or model representations. On the other hand, semantically guided inference systems enjoy important properties, such as the generation of solely non-redundant clauses. I discuss to what extend the two paradigms may be unifiable

Learning Shorter Redundant Clauses in SDCL Using MaxSAT

In this paper we present the design and implementation of a Satisfaction-Driven Clause Learning (SDCL) SAT solver, MapleSDCL, which uses a MaxSAT-based technique that enables it to learn shorter, and hence better, redundant clauses. We also perform a thorough empirical evaluation of our method and show that our SDCL solver solves Mutilated Chess Board (MCB) problems significantly faster than CDCL solvers, without requiring any alteration to the branching heuristic used by the underlying CDCL SAT solver

Conformant Planning as a Case Study of Incremental QBF Solving

We consider planning with uncertainty in the initial state as a case study of incremental quantified Boolean formula (QBF) solving. We report on experiments with a workflow to incrementally encode a planning instance into a sequence of QBFs. To solve this sequence of incrementally constructed QBFs, we use our general-purpose incremental QBF solver DepQBF. Since the generated QBFs have many clauses and variables in common, our approach avoids redundancy both in the encoding phase and in the solving phase. Experimental results show that incremental QBF solving outperforms non-incremental QBF solving. Our results are the first empirical study of incremental QBF solving in the context of planning and motivate its use in other application domains.Comment: added reference to extended journal article; revision (camera-ready, to appear in the proceedings of AISC 2014, volume 8884 of LNAI, Springer

Learning programs by learning from failures

We describe an inductive logic programming (ILP) approach called learning from failures. In this approach, an ILP system (the learner) decomposes the learning problem into three separate stages: generate, test, and constrain. In the generate stage, the learner generates a hypothesis (a logic program) that satisfies a set of hypothesis constraints (constraints on the syntactic form of hypotheses). In the test stage, the learner tests the hypothesis against training examples. A hypothesis fails when it does not entail all the positive examples or entails a negative example. If a hypothesis fails, then, in the constrain stage, the learner learns constraints from the failed hypothesis to prune the hypothesis space, i.e. to constrain subsequent hypothesis generation. For instance, if a hypothesis is too general (entails a negative example), the constraints prune generalisations of the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is too specific (does not entail all the positive examples), the constraints prune specialisations of the hypothesis. This loop repeats until either (i) the learner finds a hypothesis that entails all the positive and none of the negative examples, or (ii) there are no more hypotheses to test. We introduce Popper, an ILP system that implements this approach by combining answer set programming and Prolog. Popper supports infinite problem domains, reasoning about lists and numbers, learning textually minimal programs, and learning recursive programs. Our experimental results on three domains (toy game problems, robot strategies, and list transformations) show that (i) constraints drastically improve learning performance, and (ii) Popper can outperform existing ILP systems, both in terms of predictive accuracies and learning times.Comment: Accepted for the machine learning journa

Revisiting the Training of Logic Models of Protein Signaling Networks with a Formal Approach based on Answer Set Programming

A fundamental question in systems biology is the construction and training to data of mathematical models. Logic formalisms have become very popular to model signaling networks because their simplicity allows us to model large systems encompassing hundreds of proteins. An approach to train (Boolean) logic models to high-throughput phospho-proteomics data was recently introduced and solved using optimization heuristics based on stochastic methods. Here we demonstrate how this problem can be solved using Answer Set Programming (ASP), a declarative problem solving paradigm, in which a problem is encoded as a logical program such that its answer sets represent solutions to the problem. ASP has significant improvements over heuristic methods in terms of efficiency and scalability, it guarantees global optimality of solutions as well as provides a complete set of solutions. We illustrate the application of ASP with in silico cases based on realistic networks and data

Partial Quantifier Elimination By Certificate Clauses

We study partial quantifier elimination (PQE) for propositional CNF formulas. In contrast to full quantifier elimination, in PQE, one can limit the set of clauses taken out of the scope of quantifiers to a small subset of target clauses. The appeal of PQE is twofold. First, PQE can be dramatically simpler than full quantifier elimination. Second, it provides a language for performing incremental computations. Many verification problems (e.g. equivalence checking and model checking) are inherently incremental and so can be solved in terms of PQE. Our approach is based on deriving clauses depending only on unquantified variables that make the target clauses $\mathit{redundant}$. Proving redundancy of a target clause is done by construction of a ``certificate'' clause implying the former. We describe a PQE algorithm called $\mathit{START}$ that employs the approach above. We apply $\mathit{START}$ to generating properties of a design implementation that are not implied by specification. The existence of an $\mathit{unwanted}$ property means that this implementation is buggy. Our experiments with HWMCC-13 benchmarks suggest that $\mathit{START}$ can be used for generating properties of real-life designs

cake_lpr: Verified Propagation Redundancy Checking in CakeML

Modern SAT solvers can emit independently checkable proof certificates to validate their results. The state-of-the-art proof system that allows for compact proof certificates is propagation redundancy (PR). However, the only existing method to validate proofs in this system with a formally verified tool requires a transformation to a weaker proof system, which can result in a significant blowup in the size of the proof and increased proof validation time. This paper describes the first approach to formally verify PR proofs on a succinct representation; we present (i) a new Linear PR (LPR) proof format, (ii) a tool to efficiently convert PR proofs into LPR format, and (iii) cake_lpr, a verified LPR proof checker developed in CakeML. The LPR format is backwards compatible with the existing LRAT format, but extends the latter with support for the addition of PR clauses. Moreover, cake_lpr is verified using CakeML’s binary code extraction toolchain, which yields correctness guarantees for its machine code (binary) implementation. This further distinguishes our clausal proof checker from existing ones because unverified extraction and compilation tools are removed from its trusted computing base. We experimentally show that LPR provides efficiency gains over existing proof formats and that the strong correctness guarantees are obtained without significant sacrifice in the performance of the verified executable