262 research outputs found

    SAT-based Explicit LTL Reasoning

    Full text link
    We present here a new explicit reasoning framework for linear temporal logic (LTL), which is built on top of propositional satisfiability (SAT) solving. As a proof-of-concept of this framework, we describe a new LTL satisfiability tool, Aalta\_v2.0, which is built on top of the MiniSAT SAT solver. We test the effectiveness of this approach by demonnstrating that Aalta\_v2.0 significantly outperforms all existing LTL satisfiability solvers. Furthermore, we show that the framework can be extended from propositional LTL to assertional LTL (where we allow theory atoms), by replacing MiniSAT with the Z3 SMT solver, and demonstrating that this can yield an exponential improvement in performance

    Incremental Maximum Satisfiability

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    SAT-Based Synthesis Methods for Safety Specs

    Full text link
    Automatic synthesis of hardware components from declarative specifications is an ambitious endeavor in computer aided design. Existing synthesis algorithms are often implemented with Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs), inheriting their scalability limitations. Instead of BDDs, we propose several new methods to synthesize finite-state systems from safety specifications using decision procedures for the satisfiability of quantified and unquantified Boolean formulas (SAT-, QBF- and EPR-solvers). The presented approaches are based on computational learning, templates, or reduction to first-order logic. We also present an efficient parallelization, and optimizations to utilize reachability information and incremental solving. Finally, we compare all methods in an extensive case study. Our new methods outperform BDDs and other existing work on some classes of benchmarks, and our parallelization achieves a super-linear speedup. This is an extended version of [5], featuring an additional appendix.Comment: Extended version of a paper at VMCAI'1

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Efficiently Explaining CSPs with Unsatisfiable Subset Optimization (extended algorithms and examples)

    Full text link
    We build on a recently proposed method for stepwise explaining solutions of Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP) in a human-understandable way. An explanation here is a sequence of simple inference steps where simplicity is quantified using a cost function. The algorithms for explanation generation rely on extracting Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets (MUS) of a derived unsatisfiable formula, exploiting a one-to-one correspondence between so-called non-redundant explanations and MUSs. However, MUS extraction algorithms do not provide any guarantee of subset minimality or optimality with respect to a given cost function. Therefore, we build on these formal foundations and tackle the main points of improvement, namely how to generate explanations efficiently that are provably optimal (with respect to the given cost metric). For that, we developed (1) a hitting set-based algorithm for finding the optimal constrained unsatisfiable subsets; (2) a method for re-using relevant information over multiple algorithm calls; and (3) methods exploiting domain-specific information to speed up the explanation sequence generation. We experimentally validated our algorithms on a large number of CSP problems. We found that our algorithms outperform the MUS approach in terms of explanation quality and computational time (on average up to 56 % faster than a standard MUS approach).Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2105.1176

    A constraint solver for software engineering : finding models and cores of large relational specifications

    Get PDF
    Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2009.This electronic version was submitted by the student author. The certified thesis is available in the Institute Archives and Special Collections.Includes bibliographical references (p. 105-120).Relational logic is an attractive candidate for a software description language, because both the design and implementation of software often involve reasoning about relational structures: organizational hierarchies in the problem domain, architectural configurations in the high level design, or graphs and linked lists in low level code. Until recently, however, frameworks for solving relational constraints have had limited applicability. Designed to analyze small, hand-crafted models of software systems, current frameworks perform poorly on specifications that are large or that have partially known solutions. This thesis presents an efficient constraint solver for relational logic, with recent applications to design analysis, code checking, test-case generation, and declarative configuration. The solver provides analyses for both satisfiable and unsatisfiable specifications--a finite model finder for the former and a minimal unsatisfiable core extractor for the latter. It works by translating a relational problem to a boolean satisfiability problem; applying an off-the-shelf SAT solver to the resulting formula; and converting the SAT solver's output back to the relational domain. The idea of solving relational problems by reduction to SAT is not new. The core contributions of this work, instead, are new techniques for expanding the capacity and applicability of SAT-based engines. They include: a new interface to SAT that extends relational logic with a mechanism for specifying partial solutions; a new translation algorithm based on sparse matrices and auto-compacting circuits; a new symmetry detection technique that works in the presence of partial solutions; and a new core extraction algorithm that recycles inferences made at the boolean level to speed up core minimization at the specification level.by Emina Torlak.Ph.D

    Property specification patterns at work: verification and inconsistency explanation

    Get PDF
    Property specification patterns (PSPs) have been proposed to ease the formalization of requirements, yet enable automated verification thereof. In particular, the internal consistency of specifications written with PSPs can be checked automatically with the use of, for example, linear temporal logic (LTL) satisfiability solvers. However, for most practical applications, the expressiveness of PSPs is too restricted to enable writing useful requirement specifications, and proving that a set of requirements is inconsistent can be worthless unless a minimal set of conflicting requirements is extracted to help designers to correct a wrong specification. In this paper, we extend PSPs by considering Boolean as well as atomic numerical assertions, we contribute an encoding from extended PSPs to LTL formulas, and we present an algorithm computing inconsistency explanations, i.e., irreducible inconsistent subsets of the original set of requirements. Our extension enables us to reason about the internal consistency of functional requirements which would not be captured by basic PSPs. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach can check and explain (in)consistencies in specifications with nearly two thousand requirements generated using a probabilistic model, and that it enables effective handling of real-world case studies
    corecore