Recursive Online Enumeration of All Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets

In various areas of computer science, we deal with a set of constraints to be satisfied. If the constraints cannot be satisfied simultaneously, it is desirable to identify the core problems among them. Such cores are called minimal unsatisfiable subsets (MUSes). The more MUSes are identified, the more information about the conflicts among the constraints is obtained. However, a full enumeration of all MUSes is in general intractable due to the large number (even exponential) of possible conflicts. Moreover, to identify MUSes algorithms must test sets of constraints for their simultaneous satisfiabilty. The type of the test depends on the application domains. The complexity of tests can be extremely high especially for domains like temporal logics, model checking, or SMT. In this paper, we propose a recursive algorithm that identifies MUSes in an online manner (i.e., one by one) and can be terminated at any time. The key feature of our algorithm is that it minimizes the number of satisfiability tests and thus speeds up the computation. The algorithm is applicable to an arbitrary constraint domain and its effectiveness demonstrates itself especially in domains with expensive satisfiability checks. We benchmark our algorithm against state of the art algorithm on Boolean and SMT constraint domains and demonstrate that our algorithm really requires less satisfiability tests and consequently finds more MUSes in given time limits

Core-guided minimal correction set and core enumeration

A set of constraints is unsatisfiable if there is no solution that satisfies these constraints. To analyse unsatisfiable problems, the user needs to understand where inconsistencies come from and how they can be repaired. Minimal unsatisfiable cores and correction sets are important subsets of constraints that enable such analysis. In this work, we propose a new algorithm for extracting minimal unsatisfiable cores and correction sets simultaneously. Building on top of the relaxation and strengthening framework, we introduce novel techniques for extracting these sets. Our new solver significantly outperforms several state of the art algorithms on common benchmarks when it comes to extracting correction sets and compares favorably on core extraction.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

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

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

Logic-Based Explainability in Machine Learning

The last decade witnessed an ever-increasing stream of successes in Machine Learning (ML). These successes offer clear evidence that ML is bound to become pervasive in a wide range of practical uses, including many that directly affect humans. Unfortunately, the operation of the most successful ML models is incomprehensible for human decision makers. As a result, the use of ML models, especially in high-risk and safety-critical settings is not without concern. In recent years, there have been efforts on devising approaches for explaining ML models. Most of these efforts have focused on so-called model-agnostic approaches. However, all model-agnostic and related approaches offer no guarantees of rigor, hence being referred to as non-formal. For example, such non-formal explanations can be consistent with different predictions, which renders them useless in practice. This paper overviews the ongoing research efforts on computing rigorous model-based explanations of ML models; these being referred to as formal explanations. These efforts encompass a variety of topics, that include the actual definitions of explanations, the characterization of the complexity of computing explanations, the currently best logical encodings for reasoning about different ML models, and also how to make explanations interpretable for human decision makers, among others

Timed Automata Robustness Analysis via Model Checking

Timed automata (TA) have been widely adopted as a suitable formalism to model time-critical systems. Furthermore, contemporary model-checking tools allow the designer to check whether a TA complies with a system specification. However, the exact timing constants are often uncertain during the design phase. Consequently, the designer is often able to build a TA with a correct structure, however, the timing constants need to be tuned to satisfy the specification. Moreover, even if the TA initially satisfies the specification, it can be the case that just a slight perturbation during the implementation causes a violation of the specification. Unfortunately, model-checking tools are usually not able to provide any reasonable guidance on how to fix the model in such situations. In this paper, we propose several concepts and techniques to cope with the above mentioned design phase issues when dealing with reachability and safety specifications

Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design – FMCAD 2021

The Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD) is an annual conference on the theory and applications of formal methods in hardware and system verification. FMCAD provides a leading forum to researchers in academia and industry for presenting and discussing groundbreaking methods, technologies, theoretical results, and tools for reasoning formally about computing systems. FMCAD covers formal aspects of computer-aided system design including verification, specification, synthesis, and testing

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

This open access two-volume set constitutes the proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS 2021, which was held during March 27 – April 1, 2021, as part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2021. The conference was planned to take place in Luxembourg and changed to an online format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The total of 41 full papers presented in the proceedings was carefully reviewed and selected from 141 submissions. The volume also contains 7 tool papers; 6 Tool Demo papers, 9 SV-Comp Competition Papers. The papers are organized in topical sections as follows: Part I: Game Theory; SMT Verification; Probabilities; Timed Systems; Neural Networks; Analysis of Network Communication. Part II: Verification Techniques (not SMT); Case Studies; Proof Generation/Validation; Tool Papers; Tool Demo Papers; SV-Comp Tool Competition Papers