Delta-Complete Decision Procedures for Satisfiability over the Reals

We introduce the notion of "\delta-complete decision procedures" for solving SMT problems over the real numbers, with the aim of handling a wide range of nonlinear functions including transcendental functions and solutions of Lipschitz-continuous ODEs. Given an SMT problem \varphi and a positive rational number \delta, a \delta-complete decision procedure determines either that \varphi is unsatisfiable, or that the "\delta-weakening" of \varphi is satisfiable. Here, the \delta-weakening of \varphi is a variant of \varphi that allows \delta-bounded numerical perturbations on \varphi. We prove the existence of \delta-complete decision procedures for bounded SMT over reals with functions mentioned above. For functions in Type 2 complexity class C, under mild assumptions, the bounded \delta-SMT problem is in NP^C. \delta-Complete decision procedures can exploit scalable numerical methods for handling nonlinearity, and we propose to use this notion as an ideal requirement for numerically-driven decision procedures. As a concrete example, we formally analyze the DPLL framework, which integrates Interval Constraint Propagation (ICP) in DPLL(T), and establish necessary and sufficient conditions for its \delta-completeness. We discuss practical applications of \delta-complete decision procedures for correctness-critical applications including formal verification and theorem proving.Comment: A shorter version appears in IJCAR 201

Proof Generation from Delta-Decisions

We show how to generate and validate logical proofs of unsatisfiability from delta-complete decision procedures that rely on error-prone numerical algorithms. Solving this problem is important for ensuring correctness of the decision procedures. At the same time, it is a new approach for automated theorem proving over real numbers. We design a first-order calculus, and transform the computational steps of constraint solving into logic proofs, which are then validated using proof-checking algorithms. As an application, we demonstrate how proofs generated from our solver can establish many nonlinear lemmas in the the formal proof of the Kepler Conjecture.Comment: Appeared in SYNASC'1

Disjunctive Answer Set Solvers via Templates

Answer set programming is a declarative programming paradigm oriented towards difficult combinatorial search problems. A fundamental task in answer set programming is to compute stable models, i.e., solutions of logic programs. Answer set solvers are the programs that perform this task. The problem of deciding whether a disjunctive program has a stable model is $\Sigma^P_2$-complete. The high complexity of reasoning within disjunctive logic programming is responsible for few solvers capable of dealing with such programs, namely DLV, GnT, Cmodels, CLASP and WASP. In this paper we show that transition systems introduced by Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli to model and analyze satisfiability solvers can be adapted for disjunctive answer set solvers. Transition systems give a unifying perspective and bring clarity in the description and comparison of solvers. They can be effectively used for analyzing, comparing and proving correctness of search algorithms as well as inspiring new ideas in the design of disjunctive answer set solvers. In this light, we introduce a general template, which accounts for major techniques implemented in disjunctive solvers. We then illustrate how this general template captures solvers DLV, GnT and Cmodels. We also show how this framework provides a convenient tool for designing new solving algorithms by means of combinations of techniques employed in different solvers.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

A Logical Approach to Efficient Max-SAT solving

Weighted Max-SAT is the optimization version of SAT and many important problems can be naturally encoded as such. Solving weighted Max-SAT is an important problem from both a theoretical and a practical point of view. In recent years, there has been considerable interest in finding efficient solving techniques. Most of this work focus on the computation of good quality lower bounds to be used within a branch and bound DPLL-like algorithm. Most often, these lower bounds are described in a procedural way. Because of that, it is difficult to realize the {\em logic} that is behind. In this paper we introduce an original framework for Max-SAT that stresses the parallelism with classical SAT. Then, we extend the two basic SAT solving techniques: {\em search} and {\em inference}. We show that many algorithmic {\em tricks} used in state-of-the-art Max-SAT solvers are easily expressable in {\em logic} terms with our framework in a unified manner. Besides, we introduce an original search algorithm that performs a restricted amount of {\em weighted resolution} at each visited node. We empirically compare our algorithm with a variety of solving alternatives on several benchmarks. Our experiments, which constitute to the best of our knowledge the most comprehensive Max-sat evaluation ever reported, show that our algorithm is generally orders of magnitude faster than any competitor

Extracting verified decision procedures: DPLL and Resolution

This article is concerned with the application of the program extraction technique to a new class of problems: the synthesis of decision procedures for the classical satisfiability problem that are correct by construction. To this end, we formalize a completeness proof for the DPLL proof system and extract a SAT solver from it. When applied to a propositional formula in conjunctive normal form the program produces either a satisfying assignment or a DPLL derivation showing its unsatisfiability. We use non-computational quantifiers to remove redundant computational content from the extracted program and translate it into Haskell to improve performance. We also prove the equivalence between the resolution proof system and the DPLL proof system with a bound on the size of the resulting resolution proof. This demonstrates that it is possible to capture quantitative information about the extracted program on the proof level. The formalization is carried out in the interactive proof assistant Minlog

Model Counting of Query Expressions: Limitations of Propositional Methods

Query evaluation in tuple-independent probabilistic databases is the problem of computing the probability of an answer to a query given independent probabilities of the individual tuples in a database instance. There are two main approaches to this problem: (1) in `grounded inference' one first obtains the lineage for the query and database instance as a Boolean formula, then performs weighted model counting on the lineage (i.e., computes the probability of the lineage given probabilities of its independent Boolean variables); (2) in methods known as `lifted inference' or `extensional query evaluation', one exploits the high-level structure of the query as a first-order formula. Although it is widely believed that lifted inference is strictly more powerful than grounded inference on the lineage alone, no formal separation has previously been shown for query evaluation. In this paper we show such a formal separation for the first time. We exhibit a class of queries for which model counting can be done in polynomial time using extensional query evaluation, whereas the algorithms used in state-of-the-art exact model counters on their lineages provably require exponential time. Our lower bounds on the running times of these exact model counters follow from new exponential size lower bounds on the kinds of d-DNNF representations of the lineages that these model counters (either explicitly or implicitly) produce. Though some of these queries have been studied before, no non-trivial lower bounds on the sizes of these representations for these queries were previously known.Comment: To appear in International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT) 201

Transition Systems for Model Generators - A Unifying Approach

A fundamental task for propositional logic is to compute models of propositional formulas. Programs developed for this task are called satisfiability solvers. We show that transition systems introduced by Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli to model and analyze satisfiability solvers can be adapted for solvers developed for two other propositional formalisms: logic programming under the answer-set semantics, and the logic PC(ID). We show that in each case the task of computing models can be seen as "satisfiability modulo answer-set programming," where the goal is to find a model of a theory that also is an answer set of a certain program. The unifying perspective we develop shows, in particular, that solvers CLASP and MINISATID are closely related despite being developed for different formalisms, one for answer-set programming and the latter for the logic PC(ID).Comment: 30 pages; Accepted for presentation at ICLP 2011 and for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming; contains the appendix with proof

A Survey of Satisfiability Modulo Theory

Satisfiability modulo theory (SMT) consists in testing the satisfiability of first-order formulas over linear integer or real arithmetic, or other theories. In this survey, we explain the combination of propositional satisfiability and decision procedures for conjunctions known as DPLL(T), and the alternative "natural domain" approaches. We also cover quantifiers, Craig interpolants, polynomial arithmetic, and how SMT solvers are used in automated software analysis.Comment: Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing, Sep 2016, Bucharest, Romania. 201