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)

On the Complexity of Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formulas

We show that (1) the Minimal False QCNF search-problem (MF-search) and the Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formula search problem (MU-search) are FPSPACE complete because of the very expressive power of QBF/LTL, (2) we extend the PSPACE-hardness of the MF decision problem to the MU decision problem. As a consequence, we deduce a positive answer to the open question of PSPACE hardness of the inherent Vacuity Checking problem. We even show that the Inherent Non Vacuous formula search problem is also FPSPACE-complete.Comment: Minimal unsatisfiable cores For LTL causes inherent vacuity checking redundancy coverag

Understanding Inconsistency -- A Contribution to the Field of Non-monotonic Reasoning

Conflicting information in an agent's knowledge base may lead to a semantical defect, that is, a situation where it is impossible to draw any plausible conclusion. Finding out the reasons for the observed inconsistency and restoring consistency in a certain minimal way are frequently occurring issues in the research area of knowledge representation and reasoning. In a seminal paper Raymond Reiter proves a duality between maximal consistent subsets of a propositional knowledge base and minimal hitting sets of each minimal conflict -- the famous hitting set duality. We extend Reiter's result to arbitrary non-monotonic logics. To this end, we develop a refined notion of inconsistency, called strong inconsistency. We show that minimal strongly inconsistent subsets play a similar role as minimal inconsistent subsets in propositional logic. In particular, the duality between hitting sets of minimal inconsistent subsets and maximal consistent subsets generalizes to arbitrary logics if the stronger notion of inconsistency is used. We cover various notions of repairs and characterize them using analogous hitting set dualities. Our analysis also includes an investigation of structural properties of knowledge bases with respect to our notions. Minimal inconsistent subsets of knowledge bases in monotonic logics play an important role when investigating the reasons for conflicts and trying to handle them, but also for inconsistency measurement. Our notion of strong inconsistency thus allows us to extend existing results to non-monotonic logics. While measuring inconsistency in propositional logic has been investigated for some time now, taking the non-monotony into account poses new challenges. In order to tackle them, we focus on the structure of minimal strongly inconsistent subsets of a knowledge base. We propose measures based on this notion and investigate their behavior in a non-monotonic setting by revisiting existing rationality postulates, and analyzing the compliance of the proposed measures with these postulates. We provide a series of first results in the context of inconsistency in abstract argumentation theory regarding the two most important reasoning modes, namely credulous as well as skeptical acceptance. Our analysis includes the following problems regarding minimal repairs: existence, verification, computation of one and characterization of all solutions. The latter will be tackled with our previously obtained duality results. Finally, we investigate the complexity of various related reasoning problems and compare our results to existing ones for monotonic logics