New results on rewrite-based satisfiability procedures

Program analysis and verification require decision procedures to reason on theories of data structures. Many problems can be reduced to the satisfiability of sets of ground literals in theory T. If a sound and complete inference system for first-order logic is guaranteed to terminate on T-satisfiability problems, any theorem-proving strategy with that system and a fair search plan is a T-satisfiability procedure. We prove termination of a rewrite-based first-order engine on the theories of records, integer offsets, integer offsets modulo and lists. We give a modularity theorem stating sufficient conditions for termination on a combinations of theories, given termination on each. The above theories, as well as others, satisfy these conditions. We introduce several sets of benchmarks on these theories and their combinations, including both parametric synthetic benchmarks to test scalability, and real-world problems to test performances on huge sets of literals. We compare the rewrite-based theorem prover E with the validity checkers CVC and CVC Lite. Contrary to the folklore that a general-purpose prover cannot compete with reasoners with built-in theories, the experiments are overall favorable to the theorem prover, showing that not only the rewriting approach is elegant and conceptually simple, but has important practical implications.Comment: To appear in the ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 49 page

Combining SAT Methods with Non-Clausal Decision Heuristics

AbstractA decision procedure for arbitrary first-order formulas can be viewed as combining a propositional search with a decision procedure for conjunctions of first-order literals, so Boolean SAT methods can be used for the propositional search in order to improve the performance of the overall decision procedure. We show how to combine some Boolean SAT methods with non-clausal heuristics developed for first-order decision procedures. The combination of methods leads to a smaller number of decisions than either method alone

Synchronous Counting and Computational Algorithm Design

Consider a complete communication network on $n$ nodes, each of which is a state machine. In synchronous 2-counting, the nodes receive a common clock pulse and they have to agree on which pulses are "odd" and which are "even". We require that the solution is self-stabilising (reaching the correct operation from any initial state) and it tolerates $f$ Byzantine failures (nodes that send arbitrary misinformation). Prior algorithms are expensive to implement in hardware: they require a source of random bits or a large number of states. This work consists of two parts. In the first part, we use computational techniques (often known as synthesis) to construct very compact deterministic algorithms for the first non-trivial case of $f = 1$. While no algorithm exists for $n < 4$, we show that as few as 3 states per node are sufficient for all values $n \ge 4$. Moreover, the problem cannot be solved with only 2 states per node for $n = 4$, but there is a 2-state solution for all values $n \ge 6$. In the second part, we develop and compare two different approaches for synthesising synchronous counting algorithms. Both approaches are based on casting the synthesis problem as a propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem and employing modern SAT-solvers. The difference lies in how to solve the SAT problem: either in a direct fashion, or incrementally within a counter-example guided abstraction refinement loop. Empirical results suggest that the former technique is more efficient if we want to synthesise time-optimal algorithms, while the latter technique discovers non-optimal algorithms more quickly.Comment: 35 pages, extended and revised versio

Zapato: Automatic theorem proving for

Counterexample-driven abstraction refinement is an automatic process that produces abstract models of finite and infinite-state systems. When this process is applied to software, an automatic theorem prover for quantifier-free first-order logic helps to determine the feasibility of program paths and to refine the abstraction. In this paper we report on a fast, lightweight, and automatic theorem prover called Zapato which we have built specifically to solve the queries produced during the abstraction refinement process

Delayed theory combination vs. Nelson-Oppen for satisfiability modulo theories: a comparative analysis

Most state-of-the-art approaches for Satisfiability Modulo Theories $(SMT(\mathcal{T}))$ rely on the integration between a SAT solver and a decision procedure for sets of literals in the background theory $\mathcal{T} (\mathcal{T}{\text {-}}solver)$ . Often $\mathcal{T}$ is the combination $\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2$ of two (or more) simpler theories $(SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2))$ , s.t. the specific ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ must be combined. Up to a few years ago, the standard approach to $SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2)$ was to integrate the SAT solver with one combined $\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2{\text {-}}solver$ , obtained from two distinct ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ by means of evolutions of Nelson and Oppen's (NO) combination procedure, in which the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ deduce and exchange interface equalities. Nowadays many state-of-the-art SMT solvers use evolutions of a more recent $SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2)$ procedure called Delayed Theory Combination (DTC), in which each ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solver$ interacts directly and only with the SAT solver, in such a way that part or all of the (possibly very expensive) reasoning effort on interface equalities is delegated to the SAT solver itself. In this paper we present a comparative analysis of DTC vs. NO for $SMT(\mathcal{T}_1 \cup \mathcal{T}_2)$ . On the one hand, we explain the advantages of DTC in exploiting the power of modern SAT solvers to reduce the search. On the other hand, we show that the extra amount of Boolean search required to the SAT solver can be controlled. In fact, we prove two novel theoretical results, for both convex and non-convex theories and for different deduction capabilities of the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ , which relate the amount of extra Boolean search required to the SAT solver by DTC with the number of deductions and case-splits required to the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ by NO in order to perform the same tasks: (i) under the same hypotheses of deduction capabilities of the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ required by NO, DTC causes no extra Boolean search; (ii) using ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers$ with limited or no deduction capabilities, the extra Boolean search required can be reduced down to a negligible amount by controlling the quality of the $\mathcal{T}$ -conflict sets returned by the ${\mathcal{T}_i}{\text {-}}solvers

Algorithmic Theories of Problems. A Constructive and a Non-Constructive Approach

In this paper we examine two approaches to the formal treatment of the notion of problem in the paradigm of algorithmic semantics. Namely, we will explore an approach based on Martin-Löf’s Constructive Type Theory (CTT), which can be seen as a direct continuation of Kolmogorov’s original calculus of problems, and an approach utilizing Tichý’s Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL), which can be viewed as a non-constructive attempt of interpreting Kolmogorov’s logic of problems. In the last section we propose Kolmogorov and CTT-inspired modifications to TIL-based approach. The focus will be on non-empirical (i.e., mathematical and logical) problems only

On Algorithms and Complexity for Sets with Cardinality Constraints

Typestate systems ensure many desirable properties of imperative programs, including initialization of object fields and correct use of stateful library interfaces. Abstract sets with cardinality constraints naturally generalize typestate properties: relationships between the typestates of objects can be expressed as subset and disjointness relations on sets, and elements of sets can be represented as sets of cardinality one. Motivated by these applications, this paper presents new algorithms and new complexity results for constraints on sets and their cardinalities. We study several classes of constraints and demonstrate a trade-off between their expressive power and their complexity. Our first result concerns a quantifier-free fragment of Boolean Algebra with Presburger Arithmetic. We give a nondeterministic polynomial-time algorithm for reducing the satisfiability of sets with symbolic cardinalities to constraints on constant cardinalities, and give a polynomial-space algorithm for the resulting problem. In a quest for more efficient fragments, we identify several subclasses of sets with cardinality constraints whose satisfiability is NP-hard. Finally, we identify a class of constraints that has polynomial-time satisfiability and entailment problems and can serve as a foundation for efficient program analysis.Comment: 20 pages. 12 figure