an efficient and flexible approach to resolution proof
play

An Efficient and Flexible Approach to Resolution Proof Reduction N. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 08, 2023 •205 likes •1.32k views

An Efficient and Flexible Approach to Resolution Proof Reduction N. Sharygina Formal Verification and Security Group University of Lugano March 9, 2011 Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 1 / 60 Outline 1

  1. Related Work Features • Post-processing approach • SAT/SMT solving framework • Compression techniques • Clauses subsumption checking [Amjad07] • Proof reordering based on literals linking [Amjad07] • Proof reordering based on variable splitting [Cotton10] • Merging of shared substructures in subproofs [Sinz07] • Memoization of shared substructures [Amjad08,Cotton10] • Algebraic approach, resolution hypergraphs [Fontaine10] • Removal pivots redundancies along paths [Bar-Ilan08] Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 12 / 60

  2. Notation Resolution System • Literal p p Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 13 / 60

  3. Notation Resolution System • Literal p p • Clause p ∨ q ∨ r ∨ . . . → pqr . . . • Empty clause ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 13 / 60

  4. Notation Resolution System • Literal p p • Clause p ∨ q ∨ r ∨ . . . → pqr . . . • Empty clause ⊥ pC pD • Resolution rule p CD Antecedent Resolvent Pivot Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 13 / 60

  5. Notation Resolution System • Literal p p • Clause p ∨ q ∨ r ∨ . . . → pqr . . . • Empty clause ⊥ pC pD • Resolution rule p CD Antecedent Resolvent Pivot • Resolution proof of unsatisfiability of a set of clauses S Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 13 / 60

  6. Notation Resolution System • Literal p p • Clause p ∨ q ∨ r ∨ . . . → pqr . . . • Empty clause ⊥ pC pD • Resolution rule p CD Antecedent Resolvent Pivot • Resolution proof of unsatisfiability of a set of clauses S • Tree • Leaves as clauses of S • Intermediate nodes as resolvents • Root as unique empty clause Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 13 / 60

  7. Resolution Proofs Example • Set of clauses { pq , pq , qr , qr } • Proof of unsatisfiability pq pq qr qr p r q q q ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 14 / 60

  8. Pivots Redundancies [Bar-Ilan08] • No need to resolve more than once on a pivot in a path leaf-root Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 15 / 60

  9. Pivots Redundancies [Bar-Ilan08] • No need to resolve more than once on a pivot in a path leaf-root • O.Bar-Ilan, O.Fuhrmann, S.Hoory, O.Shacham and O.Strichman: RecyclePivots Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 15 / 60

  10. Pivots Redundancies [Bar-Ilan08] • No need to resolve more than once on a pivot in a path leaf-root • O.Bar-Ilan, O.Fuhrmann, S.Hoory, O.Shacham and O.Strichman: RecyclePivots • Perform DFS from root to leaves • Track pivots occurrences along paths • In case of multiple occurrences keep the closest one to root • Output regular proof Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 15 / 60

  11. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qr pq qo pq q q po pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 16 / 60

  12. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qr pq qo pq q q po pr p or o o r { r } r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 17 / 60

  13. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qr pq qo pq q q po pr p or { r , o } o o r { r } r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 18 / 60

  14. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qo pq qr pq q q po { r , o , p } pr p or { r , o } o o r { r } r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 19 / 60

  15. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qo { r , o , p , q } pq qr pq q q po { r , o , p } pr p or { r , o } o o r { r } r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 20 / 60

  16. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qo { r , o , p , q } pq qr pq q q po { r , o , p } pr p or { r , o } o o r { r } r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 21 / 60

  17. RecyclePivots Example pq po p qo { r , o , p , q } pq qr pq q q po { r , o , p } pr p or { r , o } o o r { r } r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 22 / 60

  18. RecyclePivots Example qr pq pq pq q q po pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 23 / 60

  19. RecyclePivots Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 24 / 60

  20. RecyclePivots Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 25 / 60

  21. RecyclePivots Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 26 / 60

  22. RecyclePivots Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 27 / 60

  23. Outline 1 Background 2 Motivation and Related Work 3 Contribution Proof Reduction Framework Implementation and Evaluation 4 Summary and Future Work Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 28 / 60

  24. Outline 1 Background 2 Motivation and Related Work 3 Contribution Proof Reduction Framework Implementation and Evaluation 4 Summary and Future Work Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 29 / 60

  25. Transformation Framework Features • Local rewriting rules Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 30 / 60

  26. Transformation Framework Features • Local rewriting rules • B reduction • A perturbation Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 30 / 60

  27. Transformation Framework Features • Local rewriting rules • B reduction • A perturbation • Rule context pqC pD p qCD qE q CDE Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 30 / 60

  28. Transformation Framework Features • Local rewriting rules • B reduction • A perturbation • Rule context pqC pD p qCD qE q CDE • Exhaustiveness up to symmetry Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 30 / 60

  29. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • B rules pqC pqD p pqC pqE B 1 ⇒ q qCD pqE q pCE pCDE Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 31 / 60

  30. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • B rules pqC pqD p pqC pqE B 1 ⇒ q qCD pqE q pCE pCDE • Redundancy as reintroduction variable after elimination Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 31 / 60

  31. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • B rules pqC pqD p pqC pqE B 1 ⇒ q qCD pqE q pCE pCDE • Redundancy as reintroduction variable after elimination • Subproof simplification Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 31 / 60

  32. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • B rules pqC pqD p pqC pqE B 1 ⇒ q qCD pqE q pCE pCDE • Redundancy as reintroduction variable after elimination • Subproof simplification • Subproof root strengthening Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 31 / 60

  33. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • A rules pqC pD pqC qE p q A 2 ⇒ qCD qE q pCE pD p CDE CDE Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 32 / 60

  34. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • A rules pqC pD pqC qE p q A 2 ⇒ qCD qE q pCE pD p CDE CDE • Pivots swapping Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 32 / 60

  35. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • A rules pqC pD pqC qE p q A 2 ⇒ qCD qE q pCE pD p CDE CDE • Pivots swapping • Topology perturbation Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 32 / 60

  36. Transformation Framework Local rewriting rules • A rules pqC pD pqC qE p q A 2 ⇒ qCD qE q pCE pD p CDE CDE • Pivots swapping • Topology perturbation • Redundancies exposure Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 32 / 60

  37. Local rewriting rules pqC pqD pqC qE qE pqD p q A 1 ⇒ qCD qE pCE pDE q p CDE CDE pqC pD pqC qE p q A 2 ⇒ qCD qE q pCE pD p CDE CDE pqC pqD p pqC pqE B 1 ⇒ q qCD pqE q pCE pCDE pqC pD pqC pqE p q B 2 ⇒ qDC pqE pCE pD q p pCDE CDE pqC pD p pqC pqE B 2 ′ ⇒ q qDC pqE q pCE pCDE pqC pD p B 3 ⇒ qCD pqE pD q pCDE Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 33 / 60

  38. Rule-based Approach Example pq po p qr pq qo pq q q po pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 34 / 60

  39. Rule-based Approach Example pq po p qr pq qo pq q q po pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 35 / 60

  40. Rule-based Approach Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 36 / 60

  41. Rule-based Approach Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p or o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 37 / 60

  42. Rule-based Approach Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 38 / 60

  43. Rule-based Approach Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r o o r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 39 / 60

  44. Rule-based Approach Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 40 / 60

  45. Rule-based Approach Example qr pq pq pq q q p pr p r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 41 / 60

  46. Rule-based Approach Example pq pq q p pq p qr q q r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 42 / 60

  47. Rule-based Approach Example pq pq q p pq p qr q q r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 43 / 60

  48. Rule-based Approach Example pq pq q p pq p qr q q r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 44 / 60

  49. Rule-based Approach Example pq pq p qr q q r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 45 / 60

  50. Rule-based Approach Example pq pq p qr q q r r r ⊥ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 46 / 60

  51. Comparison • RecyclePivots Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 47 / 60

  52. Comparison • RecyclePivots • Pros Global information Fast and effective • Cons Cannot expose redundancies Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 47 / 60

  53. Comparison • RecyclePivots • Pros Global information Fast and effective • Cons Cannot expose redundancies • Rule-based approach Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 47 / 60

  54. Comparison • RecyclePivots • Pros Global information Fast and effective • Cons Cannot expose redundancies • Rule-based approach • Pros Flexibility in rules application Flexibility in amount of transformation Can expose redundancies • Cons Local information Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 47 / 60

  55. Outline 1 Background 2 Motivation and Related Work 3 Contribution Proof Reduction Framework Implementation and Evaluation 4 Summary and Future Work Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 48 / 60

  56. Implementation A Simple Algorithm • Based on a sequence of proof traversals (e.g. topological order) Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 49 / 60

  57. Implementation A Simple Algorithm • Based on a sequence of proof traversals (e.g. topological order) • Parameterized in number of traversals and time limit Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 49 / 60

  58. Implementation A Simple Algorithm • Based on a sequence of proof traversals (e.g. topological order) • Parameterized in number of traversals and time limit • Examination non-leaf clauses Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 49 / 60

  59. Implementation A Simple Algorithm • Based on a sequence of proof traversals (e.g. topological order) • Parameterized in number of traversals and time limit • Examination non-leaf clauses • Pivot in both antecedents → update, match context, apply rule pqC ′ pD ′ qC ′ D ′ qE ′ p qC ′ D ′ qE ′ ⇒ ⇒ q q qC ′ D ′ qE ′ CDE C ′ D ′ E ′ q C ′ D ′ E ′ Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 49 / 60

  60. Implementation A Simple Algorithm • Based on a sequence of proof traversals (e.g. topological order) • Parameterized in number of traversals and time limit • Examination non-leaf clauses • Pivot in both antecedents → update, match context, apply rule pqC ′ pD ′ qC ′ D ′ qE ′ p qC ′ D ′ qE ′ ⇒ ⇒ q q qC ′ D ′ qE ′ CDE C ′ D ′ E ′ q C ′ D ′ E ′ • Pivot not in both antecedents → remove resolution step C ′ D ′ qE ′ ⇒ q C ′ D ′ CDE Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 49 / 60

  61. Implementation A Simple Algorithm • Based on a sequence of proof traversals (e.g. topological order) • Parameterized in number of traversals and time limit • Examination non-leaf clauses • Pivot in both antecedents → update, match context, apply rule pqC ′ pD ′ qC ′ D ′ qE ′ p qC ′ D ′ qE ′ ⇒ ⇒ q q qC ′ D ′ qE ′ CDE C ′ D ′ E ′ q C ′ D ′ E ′ • Pivot not in both antecedents → remove resolution step C ′ D ′ qE ′ ⇒ q C ′ D ′ CDE • Easy combination with RecyclePivots Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 49 / 60

  62. Evaluation Framework and Benchmarks • Implemented in C++ and integrated with OpenSMT • Available at www.inf.usi.ch/phd/rollini/hvc.html Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 50 / 60

  63. Evaluation Framework and Benchmarks • Implemented in C++ and integrated with OpenSMT • Available at www.inf.usi.ch/phd/rollini/hvc.html • Benchmarks Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 50 / 60

  64. Evaluation Framework and Benchmarks • Implemented in C++ and integrated with OpenSMT • Available at www.inf.usi.ch/phd/rollini/hvc.html • Benchmarks • SMT: SMT-LIB library • SAT: SAT competition • Academic and industrial problems Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 50 / 60

  65. Combined Approach Evaluation Experimental results over SMT: QF UF, QF IDL, QF LRA, QF RDL # Avg nodes Avg edges Avg core T ( s ) Max nodes Max edges Max core RP 1370 6.7% 7.5% 1.3% 1.7 65.1% 68.9% 39.1% Ratio 0.01 1366 8.9% 10.7% 1.4% 3.4 66.3% 70.2% 45.7% 0.025 1366 9.8% 11.9% 1.5% 3.6 77.2% 79.9% 45.7% 0.05 1366 10.7% 13.0% 1.6% 4.1 78.5% 81.2% 45.7% 0.075 1366 11.4% 13.8% 1.7% 4.5 78.5% 81.2% 45.7% 0.1 1364 11.8% 14.4% 1.7% 5.0 78.8% 83.6% 45.7% 0.25 1359 13.6% 16.6% 1.9% 7.6 79.6% 84.4% 45.7% 0.5 1348 15.0% 18.4% 2.0% 11.5 79.1% 85.2% 45.7% 0.75 1341 16.0% 19.5% 2.1% 15.1 79.9% 86.1% 45.7% 1 1337 16.7% 20.4% 2.2% 18.8 79.9% 86.1% 45.7% • Ratio — time threshold as fraction of solving time • # — number of benchmarks solved • Avg nodes , Avg edges , Avg core — average reduction in proof size • T ( s ) — average transformation time in seconds • Max nodes , Max edges , Max core — max reduction in proof size Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 51 / 60

  66. Combined Approach Evaluation Experimental results over SMT: QF UF, QF IDL, QF LRA, QF RDL # Avg nodes Avg edges Avg core T ( s ) Max nodes Max edges Max core RP 1370 6.7% 7.5% 1.3% 1.7 65.1% 68.9% 39.1% Ratio 0.01 1366 8.9% 10.7% 1.4% 3.4 66.3% 70.2% 45.7% 0.025 1366 9.8% 11.9% 1.5% 3.6 77.2% 79.9% 45.7% 0.05 1366 10.7% 13.0% 1.6% 4.1 78.5% 81.2% 45.7% 0.075 1366 11.4% 13.8% 1.7% 4.5 78.5% 81.2% 45.7% 0.1 1364 11.8% 14.4% 1.7% 5.0 78.8% 83.6% 45.7% 0.25 1359 13.6% 16.6% 1.9% 7.6 79.6% 84.4% 45.7% 0.5 1348 15.0% 18.4% 2.0% 11.5 79.1% 85.2% 45.7% 0.75 1341 16.0% 19.5% 2.1% 15.1 79.9% 86.1% 45.7% 1 1337 16.7% 20.4% 2.2% 18.8 79.9% 86.1% 45.7% • Ratio — time threshold as fraction of solving time • # — number of benchmarks solved • Avg nodes , Avg edges , Avg core — average reduction in proof size • T ( s ) — average transformation time in seconds • Max nodes , Max edges , Max core — max reduction in proof size Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 52 / 60

  67. Combined Approach Evaluation Experimental results over SMT: QF UF, QF IDL, QF LRA, QF RDL # Avg nodes Avg edges Avg core T ( s ) Max nodes Max edges Max core RP 1370 6.7% 7.5% 1.3% 1.7 65.1% 68.9% 39.1% Ratio 0.01 1366 8.9% 10.7% 1.4% 3.4 66.3% 70.2% 45.7% 0.025 1366 9.8% 11.9% 1.5% 3.6 77.2% 79.9% 45.7% 0.05 1366 10.7% 13.0% 1.6% 4.1 78.5% 81.2% 45.7% 0.075 1366 11.4% 13.8% 1.7% 4.5 78.5% 81.2% 45.7% 0.1 1364 11.8% 14.4% 1.7% 5.0 78.8% 83.6% 45.7% 0.25 1359 13.6% 16.6% 1.9% 7.6 79.6% 84.4% 45.7% 0.5 1348 15.0% 18.4% 2.0% 11.5 79.1% 85.2% 45.7% 0.75 1341 16.0% 19.5% 2.1% 15.1 79.9% 86.1% 45.7% 1 1337 16.7% 20.4% 2.2% 18.8 79.9% 86.1% 45.7% • Ratio — time threshold as fraction of solving time • # — number of benchmarks solved • Avg nodes , Avg edges , Avg core — average reduction in proof size • T ( s ) — average transformation time in seconds • Max nodes , Max edges , Max core — max reduction in proof size Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 53 / 60

  68. Combined Approach Evaluation Experimental results over SAT # Avg nodes Avg edges Avg core T ( s ) Max nodes Max edges Max core RP 25 5.9% 6.5% 1.7% 10.8 33.1% 33.4% 30.3% Ratio 0.01 25 6.8% 7.9% 1.7% 32.3 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.025 25 6.8% 7.9% 1.7% 32.3 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.05 25 7.0% 8.2% 1.8% 40.0 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.075 25 7.2% 8.4% 1.8% 49.3 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 0.1 25 7.3% 8.4% 1.8% 60.2 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 0.25 25 7.6% 8.8% 1.9% 125.3 39.8% 40.6% 31.7% 0.5 25 7.8% 9.1% 1.9% 243.5 41.0% 41.9% 32.1% 0.75 25 7.9% 9.3% 1.9% 360.0 41.6% 42.6% 32.1% 1 23 8.4% 9.9% 2.1% 175.6 33.1% 33.4% 30.6% • Ratio — time threshold as fraction of solving time • # — number of benchmarks solved • Avg nodes , Avg edges , Avg core — average reduction in proof size • T ( s ) — average transformation time in seconds • Max nodes , Max edges , Max core — max reduction in proof size Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 54 / 60

  69. Combined Approach Evaluation Experimental results over SAT # T ( s ) Avg nodes Avg edges Avg core Max nodes Max edges Max core RP 25 5.9% 6.5% 1.7% 10.8 33.1% 33.4% 30.3% Ratio 0.01 25 6.8% 7.9% 1.7% 32.3 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.025 25 6.8% 7.9% 1.7% 32.3 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.05 25 7.0% 8.2% 1.8% 40.0 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.075 25 7.2% 8.4% 1.8% 49.3 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 0.1 25 7.3% 8.4% 1.8% 60.2 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 0.25 25 7.6% 8.8% 1.9% 125.3 39.8% 40.6% 31.7% 0.5 25 7.8% 9.1% 1.9% 243.5 41.0% 41.9% 32.1% 0.75 25 7.9% 9.3% 1.9% 360.0 41.6% 42.6% 32.1% 1 23 8.4% 9.9% 2.1% 175.6 33.1% 33.4% 30.6% • Ratio — time threshold as fraction of solving time • # — number of benchmarks solved • Avg nodes , Avg edges , Avg core — average reduction in proof size • T ( s ) — average transformation time in seconds • Max nodes , Max edges , Max core — max reduction in proof size Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 55 / 60

  70. Combined Approach Evaluation Experimental results over SAT # T ( s ) Avg nodes Avg edges Avg core Max nodes Max edges Max core RP 25 5.9% 6.5% 1.7% 10.8 33.1% 33.4% 30.3% Ratio 0.01 25 6.8% 7.9% 1.7% 32.3 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.025 25 6.8% 7.9% 1.7% 32.3 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.05 25 7.0% 8.2% 1.8% 40.0 34.0% 34.4% 30.5% 0.075 25 7.2% 8.4% 1.8% 49.3 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 0.1 25 7.3% 8.4% 1.8% 60.2 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 0.25 25 7.6% 8.8% 1.9% 125.3 39.8% 40.6% 31.7% 0.5 25 7.8% 9.1% 1.9% 243.5 41.0% 41.9% 32.1% 0.75 25 7.9% 9.3% 1.9% 360.0 41.6% 42.6% 32.1% 1 23 8.4% 9.9% 2.1% 175.6 33.1% 33.4% 30.6% • Ratio — time threshold as fraction of solving time • # — number of benchmarks solved • Avg nodes , Avg edges , Avg core — average reduction in proof size • T ( s ) — average transformation time in seconds • Max nodes , Max edges , Max core — max reduction in proof size Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 56 / 60

  71. Outline 1 Background 2 Motivation and Related Work 3 Contribution Proof Reduction Framework Implementation and Evaluation 4 Summary and Future Work Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Reduction March 9, 2011 57 / 60

Recommend

Local proof transformations for flexible interpolation and proof reduction N. Sharygina Formal

Local proof transformations for flexible interpolation and proof reduction N. Sharygina Formal

Local proof transformations for flexible interpolation and proof reduction N. Sharygina Formal Verification and Security Group University of Lugano June 21, 2011 Natasha Sharygina (USI) Flexible Proof Transformation June 21, 2011 1 / 72

2.21k views • 186 slides
The Resolution Proof System in Propositional Logic While the Hilbert proof system has the

The Resolution Proof System in Propositional Logic While the Hilbert proof system has the

The Resolution Proof System in Propositional Logic While the Hilbert proof system has the property that it reflects the methods by which humans commonly do mathematics, it is ill suited for use in automated reasoning, because of the infinite

590 views • 41 slides
A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Certifying Skolemization Kaustuv Chaudhuri, Matteo Manighetti and

A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Certifying Skolemization Kaustuv Chaudhuri, Matteo Manighetti and

A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Certifying Skolemization Kaustuv Chaudhuri, Matteo Manighetti and Dale Miller January 14, 2019 Inria Saclay & LIX, Ecole polytechnique, Palaiseau, France Introduction Theorem proving and resolution We do

869 views • 38 slides
Verified Efficient Clausal Proof Checking for SAT Filip Mari c, Faculty of Mathematics,

Verified Efficient Clausal Proof Checking for SAT Filip Mari c, Faculty of Mathematics,

Introduction Unsatisfiability proof formats for SAT Verified efficient checking of clausal proofs Verified Efficient Clausal Proof Checking for SAT Filip Mari c, Faculty of Mathematics, Belgrade (joint work with Florian Haftmann, TU Munich)

516 views • 26 slides
A Flexible and Efficient Presentation-Architecture for Adaptive Hypermedia: Description and

A Flexible and Efficient Presentation-Architecture for Adaptive Hypermedia: Description and

A Flexible and Efficient Presentation-Architecture for Adaptive Hypermedia: Description and Technical Evaluation Carsten Ullrich, Paul Libbrecht, Stefan Winterstein, Martin M uhlenbrock German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence

172 views • 5 slides
Miniaturized Energy-Efficient Integrated Neural Interfaces Chul Kim Department of Bio and Brain

Miniaturized Energy-Efficient Integrated Neural Interfaces Chul Kim Department of Bio and Brain

Miniaturized Energy-Efficient Integrated Neural Interfaces Chul Kim Department of Bio and Brain Engineering KAIST Microelectrocorticography ( ECoG) Flexible Modular Array Emerging ECoG technologies - High spatiotemporal resolution

332 views • 9 slides
eventlet eventlet coroutines flexible efficient control flow greenlet non-blocking i/o

eventlet eventlet coroutines flexible efficient control flow greenlet non-blocking i/o

eventlet eventlet coroutines flexible efficient control flow greenlet non-blocking i/o efficient network i/o select/poll/epoll threads switch between async and sync queues/pipes coroutines main subroutine: subroutine(1, 2)

487 views • 23 slides
DSV XPress fast, flexible, efficient and on time Air & Sea DSV XPress From documents to

DSV XPress fast, flexible, efficient and on time Air & Sea DSV XPress From documents to

DSV XPress fast, flexible, efficient and on time Air & Sea DSV XPress From documents to heavy weight cargo we ship it worldwide at express speed. Whether by special courier or direct delivery, with DSV XPress your shipment is

444 views • 11 slides
DIGITAL OLED for Taillighting Most Efficient, Homogeneous, and Flexible Display Technology M.

DIGITAL OLED for Taillighting Most Efficient, Homogeneous, and Flexible Display Technology M.

Light Sources and Sensors DIGITAL OLED for Taillighting Most Efficient, Homogeneous, and Flexible Display Technology M. Kruppa, W. Thomas, Audi AG, Germany Keywords: OLED, Digital OLED, Bendable OLED, Flexible Digital OLED, Display Technol-

313 views • 9 slides
Adaptive Activation Network and Functional Regularization for Efficient and Flexible Deep

Adaptive Activation Network and Functional Regularization for Efficient and Flexible Deep

Adaptive Activation Network and Functional Regularization for Efficient and Flexible Deep Multi-Task Learning (AAAI-2020) Reading Group Dec. 11, 2019 Suman Saha (postdoc), Computer Vision Lab @ ETH Zurich M o t t i i v v a a t t i

370 views • 23 slides
Flexible, Efficient Abstractions for High Performance Computation on Current and Emerging

Flexible, Efficient Abstractions for High Performance Computation on Current and Emerging

Institute for CLEAN AND SECURE ENERGY THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH TM Flexible, Efficient Abstractions for High Performance Computation on Current and Emerging Architectures J AMES C. S UTHERLAND Associate Professor - Chemical Engineering M ATT M

141 views • 10 slides
15-16/08/2009 Nicola Galesi 46 History Resolution is a proof system for DNF formulas or a

15-16/08/2009 Nicola Galesi 46 History Resolution is a proof system for DNF formulas or a

15-16/08/2009 Nicola Galesi 46 History Resolution is a proof system for DNF formulas or a refutational Systems for CNF formulas It was introduced by Blake in 1937 and then became important by a work Davis-Putnam and Robinson in the 60s in the

769 views • 75 slides
The Proof-Search Problem (between bdd-width resolution and bdd-degree semi-algebraic proofs)

The Proof-Search Problem (between bdd-width resolution and bdd-degree semi-algebraic proofs)

The Proof-Search Problem (between bdd-width resolution and bdd-degree semi-algebraic proofs) Albert Atserias Universitat Polit` ecnica de Catalunya Barcelona, Spain Satisfiability Example : 15 variables and 40 clauses x 1 x 2 x 6 x 1

1.16k views • 88 slides
Proof of Luck: an Efficient Blockchain Consensus Protocol Mitar Milutinovic, Warren He, Howard

Proof of Luck: an Efficient Blockchain Consensus Protocol Mitar Milutinovic, Warren He, Howard

Proof of Luck: an Efficient Blockchain Consensus Protocol Mitar Milutinovic, Warren He, Howard Wu, Maxinder Kanwal Outline Background: blockchains, consensus, and SGX Existing consensus mechanisms Our paper: 3 basic consensus primitives Proof

527 views • 50 slides
Polluted Resolution and other Combined Proof Search Methods for Propositional Modal Logics

Polluted Resolution and other Combined Proof Search Methods for Propositional Modal Logics

Polluted Resolution and other Combined Proof Search Methods for Propositional Modal Logics Cludia Nalon nalon@unb.br University of Braslia WOLLI, 2015 C. Nalon WOLLI, 2015 1 / 22 Polluted Resolution and other Combined Proof Search

504 views • 38 slides
Completeness of Resolution Theorem (Completeness) If a set of clauses S has no models then S *

Completeness of Resolution Theorem (Completeness) If a set of clauses S has no models then S *

5ai Completeness of Resolution Theorem (Completeness) If a set of clauses S has no models then S * [] (i.e. there is a resolution refutation of [] from S .) AUTOMATED REASONING Proof Structure for Resolution Completeness SLIDES 5: Assume

668 views • 7 slides
Planning and Designing Flexible Learning School of Business and Managements approach? 1. Some

Planning and Designing Flexible Learning School of Business and Managements approach? 1. Some

Planning and Designing Flexible Learning School of Business and Managements approach? 1. Some suggested design considerations? Inspiration Translating lectures and reading lists into flexible learning blocks Good practice DL MOOC design

130 views • 8 slides
Context Threading: A flexible and efficient dispatch technique for virtual machine interpreters

Context Threading: A flexible and efficient dispatch technique for virtual machine interpreters

Context Threading: A flexible and efficient dispatch technique for virtual machine interpreters Marc Berndl Benjamin Vitale Mathew Zaleski Angela Demke Brown Research supported by IBM CAS, NSERC, CITO 1 Interpreter performance Why not

912 views • 25 slides
Conflict nets: Efficient locally canonical MALL proof nets Dominic J. D. Hughes and Willem

Conflict nets: Efficient locally canonical MALL proof nets Dominic J. D. Hughes and Willem

Conflict nets: Efficient locally canonical MALL proof nets Dominic J. D. Hughes and Willem Heijltjes LICS, 6 July 2016 Conflict nets: Efficient locally canonical MALL proof nets Conflict nets: Efficient locally canonical MALL proof nets

671 views • 49 slides
A High Resolution Vertical Gradient Approach for Delineation of Hydrogeologic Units at a

A High Resolution Vertical Gradient Approach for Delineation of Hydrogeologic Units at a

A High Resolution Vertical Gradient Approach for Delineation of Hydrogeologic Units at a Contaminated Sedimentary Rock Field Site Jessica Meyer 2013 - Solinst Symposium High Resolution, Depth-Discrete Groundwater Monitoring - Benefits &

452 views • 26 slides
Efficient Superpixel Creation in High-resolution Images by Applying a PLANT Masters Thesis

Efficient Superpixel Creation in High-resolution Images by Applying a PLANT Masters Thesis

Efficient Superpixel Creation in High-resolution Images by Applying a PLANT Masters Thesis Jan Draegert Freie Universit at Berlin Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik Institut f ur Informatik August 4, 2017 Efficient Superpixel

929 views • 55 slides
Designing, Understanding, 1st Approach: Need . . . Interval Computations and Analyzing Proof

Designing, Understanding, 1st Approach: Need . . . Interval Computations and Analyzing Proof

Main Problem: . . . Our Main Claim: Use . . . Why Logic? 1st Approach: . . . Designing, Understanding, 1st Approach: Need . . . Interval Computations and Analyzing Proof Mining 2nd Approach: . . . Potential Use of . . . Unconventional

606 views • 22 slides
Efficient and Flexible Value Sampling Mike Burrows, Ulfar Erlingson, Shun-Tak Leung, Mark

Efficient and Flexible Value Sampling Mike Burrows, Ulfar Erlingson, Shun-Tak Leung, Mark

Efficient and Flexible Value Sampling Mike Burrows, Ulfar Erlingson, Shun-Tak Leung, Mark Vandevoorde, Carl Waldspurger, Kip Walker, Bill Weihl Compaq Computer Corporation Systems Research Center 1 Goal: Value profiling Record values during

598 views • 23 slides
On the Resolution Semiring Soutenance de Thse M arc B agnol Institut de Mathmatiques de

On the Resolution Semiring Soutenance de Thse M arc B agnol Institut de Mathmatiques de

On the Resolution Semiring Soutenance de Thse M arc B agnol Institut de Mathmatiques de Marseille 4 dcembre 2014 Introduction Proof theory, sequent calculus G o I and the resolution algebra Introduction The Resolution Semiring

709 views • 22 slides

More recommend