building bridges between symbolic computation and
play

Building Bridges between Symbolic Computation and Satisfiability - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 11, 2024 •303 likes •2.3k views

Building Bridges between Symbolic Computation and Satisfiability Checking Erika Abrah am RWTH Aachen University, Germany in cooperation with Florian Corzilius, Gereon Kremer, Stefan Schupp and others ISSAC15, 7 July 2015 Photo:

  1. SAT solving: Resolution Assumption: conjunctive normal form (CNF) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 7 / 39

  2. SAT solving: Resolution Assumption: conjunctive normal form (CNF) Derivation rule form: antecendent 1 . . . antecendent n Rule name consequent Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 7 / 39

  3. SAT solving: Resolution Assumption: conjunctive normal form (CNF) Derivation rule form: antecendent 1 . . . antecendent n Rule name consequent ( l ′ 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l ′ ( l 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l n ∨ x ) m ∨ ¬ x ) Rule res ( l 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l n ∨ l ′ 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l ′ m ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 7 / 39

  4. SAT solving: Resolution Assumption: conjunctive normal form (CNF) Derivation rule form: antecendent 1 . . . antecendent n Rule name consequent ( l ′ 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l ′ ( l 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l n ∨ x ) m ∨ ¬ x ) Rule res ( l 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l n ∨ l ′ 1 ∨ . . . ∨ l ′ m ) C x ∨ C ¬ x ∨ C is equi-satisfiable to Resolvents ( C x , C ¬ x ) ∨ C Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 7 / 39

  5. SAT solving: Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 8 / 39

  6. SAT solving: Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) ( ¬ a ∨ d ) ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) ( ¬ a ) ( a ) () Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 8 / 39

  7. SAT solving: Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) ( ¬ a ∨ d ) ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) ( ¬ a ) ( a ) () Problem: combinatorial blowup Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 8 / 39

  8. SAT solving: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  9. SAT solving: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  10. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  11. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  12. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  13. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  14. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  15. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  16. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  17. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  18. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  19. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Conflict Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  20. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Backjumping Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  21. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  22. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Conflict Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  23. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Backjumping Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  24. SAT solving: Enumeration a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 9 / 39

  25. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  26. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  27. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  28. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  29. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  30. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Pure literal detection Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  31. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  32. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  33. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  34. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Boolean constraint propagation Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  35. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  36. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Conflict Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  37. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Backjumping Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  38. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  39. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Boolean constraint propagation Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  40. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  41. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Conflict Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  42. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Backjumping Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  43. SAT solving: The DPLL algorithm a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 10 / 39

  44. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  45. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  46. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  47. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  48. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  49. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Boolean constraint propagation Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  50. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  51. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Decision Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  52. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  53. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Boolean constraint propagation Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  54. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 3 c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  55. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 3 c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 4 c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Conflict Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  56. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 3 c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 4 c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Conflict resolution and backtracking Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  57. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 3 c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 4 c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  58. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c c 8 c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) d c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) e c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 3 c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) � c 4 c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  59. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  60. SAT solving: Conflict-directed clause learning a c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ e ) . . . d c 9 c 2 : ( ¬ a ∨ d ∨ ¬ e ) . . . c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 5 : ( a ∨ b ) c 6 : ( a ∨ ¬ b ) c 7 : ( b ∨ c ) c 8 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) c 4 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ ¬ e ) c 3 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ∨ e ) c 9 : ( ¬ a ∨ ¬ d ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 11 / 39

  61. Satisfiability modulo theories solving Propositional logic is sometimes too weak for modelling. We need more expressive logics and decision procedures for them. Logics: quantifier-free fragments of first-order logic over various theories. Our focus: SAT-modulo-theories (SMT) solving. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 12 / 39

  62. Satisfiability modulo theories solving Propositional logic is sometimes too weak for modelling. We need more expressive logics and decision procedures for them. Logics: quantifier-free fragments of first-order logic over various theories. Our focus: SAT-modulo-theories (SMT) solving. SMT-LIB as standard input language since 2004. Competitions since 2005. SMT-COMP 2014 competition: 32 logical categories, 20 solvers. Linear real arithmetic (since 2005): 6 solvers. Non-linear real arithmetic (since 2010): 4 solvers. 67426 benchmark instances. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 12 / 39

  63. Satisfiability modulo theories solving Propositional logic is sometimes too weak for modelling. We need more expressive logics and decision procedures for them. Logics: quantifier-free fragments of first-order logic over various theories. Our focus: SAT-modulo-theories (SMT) solving. SMT-LIB as standard input language since 2004. Competitions since 2005. SMT-COMP 2014 competition: 32 logical categories, 20 solvers. Linear real arithmetic (since 2005): 6 solvers. Non-linear real arithmetic (since 2010): 4 solvers. 67426 benchmark instances. SMT applications: verification (model checking, static analysis, termination analysis); test case generation; controller synthesis; predicate abstraction; equivalence checking; scheduling; planning; product design automation and optimisation, . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 12 / 39

  64. SMT-LIB theories Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  65. SMT-LIB theories Quantifier-free equality logic with uninterpreted functions ( a = c ∧ b = d ) → f ( a , b ) = f ( c , d ) Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  66. SMT-LIB theories Quantifier-free bit-vector arithmetic ( a | b ) ≤ ( a & b ) Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  67. SMT-LIB theories Quantifier-free array theory i = j → read ( write ( a , i , v ) , j ) = v Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  68. SMT-LIB theories Quantifier-free integer/rational difference logic x − y ∼ 0 , ∼∈ { <, ≤ , = , ≥ , > } Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  69. SMT-LIB theories (Quantifier-free) real/integer linear arithmetic 3 x + 7 y = 8 Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  70. SMT-LIB theories (Quantifier-free) real/integer non-linear arithmetic x 2 + 2 xy + y 2 ≥ 0 Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  71. SMT-LIB theories Combined theories 2 f ( x ) + 5 y > 0 Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 13 / 39

  72. Eager vs. lazy SMT solving We focus on lazy SMT solving. Alternative eager approach: transform problems into propositional logic and use SAT solving for satisfiability checking. Condition: Logic is not more expressive than propositional logic. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 14 / 39

  73. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  74. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  75. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  76. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF SAT solver Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  77. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF SAT solver theory constraints Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  78. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF SAT solver SAT theory constraints or + lemmas UNSAT Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  79. (Full/less) lazy SMT solving ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF SAT solver SAT or UNSAT SAT theory constraints or + lemmas UNSAT Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 15 / 39

  80. Less lazy SMT solving Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 16 / 39

  81. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 16 / 39

  82. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( a ∨ b ) ∧ ( c ∨ d ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - SMT solving and Symbolic Computation 16 / 39

Recommend

Tearing Down Walls Tearing Down Walls &amp; &amp; Building Bridges Building Bridges

Tearing Down Walls Tearing Down Walls &amp; &amp; Building Bridges Building Bridges

Steps towards a Culture Web Tearing Down Walls Tearing Down Walls &amp; &amp; Building Bridges Building Bridges Interoperability: tearing down the walls between collections Musea have increasingly nice websites But: most of them

356 views • 21 slides
Top 5 To Expect in the next 3-5 years 1. Expecting less money from local, state and federal

Top 5 To Expect in the next 3-5 years 1. Expecting less money from local, state and federal

The Building Bridges Initiative (BBI): Advancing Partnerships. Improving Lives. South Carolina/Building Bridges Initiative Training Program Business Transformation Overview of the National Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) South Carolina/BBI

468 views • 30 slides
Classification of communication and cooperation mechanisms for logical and symbolic computation

Classification of communication and cooperation mechanisms for logical and symbolic computation

Classification of communication and cooperation mechanisms for logical and symbolic computation systems an article by : Jacques Calmet &amp; Karsten Homann presented by : Sidi Ould Biha 2 mars 2007 Logical &amp; Symbolic Computation Systems

369 views • 22 slides
Symbolic Computation Principles of Programming Languages Colorado School of Mines

Symbolic Computation Principles of Programming Languages Colorado School of Mines

Symbolic Computation Principles of Programming Languages Colorado School of Mines https://lambda.mines.edu CSCI-400 1 What questions did you have on the reading? Can your group members answer, or you can ask me. 2 Defjne symbolic computation in

570 views • 26 slides
EMBODIED NEURO- SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION SERGE THILL SERGE.THILL@HIS.SE CONTENTS (from

EMBODIED NEURO- SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION SERGE THILL SERGE.THILL@HIS.SE CONTENTS (from

EMBODIED NEURO- SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION SERGE THILL SERGE.THILL@HIS.SE CONTENTS (from stampauctionnetwork.com) TWO REASONS FOR BEING INTERESTED IN NEURO-SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION 1. IT APPEARS USEFUL FOR APPLICATIONS IN COGNITIVE SYSTEMS 2. IT MAY

1.03k views • 38 slides
Methodologies of Symbolic Computation James Davenport University of Bath 1819 September 2018

Methodologies of Symbolic Computation James Davenport University of Bath 1819 September 2018

Methodologies of Symbolic Computation James Davenport University of Bath 1819 September 2018 James Davenport Methodologies of Symbolic Computation 1 / 31 Structure 1 Introduction and History 2 Better straightforward algorithms 3 Modular

470 views • 31 slides
Building Bridges to Other Areas of Practice: Long-Term Conditions and Acute Trauma and

Building Bridges to Other Areas of Practice: Long-Term Conditions and Acute Trauma and

Building Bridges to Other Areas of Practice: Long-Term Conditions and Acute Trauma and Orthopaedics Bridges Symposium 2015 Lucinda Brimicombe Two projects Enhancing self- management skills for people living with LTCs in Lewisham

247 views • 22 slides
Divisibility properties of sporadic Ap ery-like numbers Symbolic Computation and Special

Divisibility properties of sporadic Ap ery-like numbers Symbolic Computation and Special

Divisibility properties of sporadic Ap ery-like numbers Symbolic Computation and Special Functions OPSFA-13, NIST Armin Straub June 2, 2015 University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign n 2 n + k 2 n A ( n ) = k k k

717 views • 56 slides
Symbolic Computation of Latency for Dataflow Graphs Adnan Bouakaz Pascal Fradet Alain Girault

Symbolic Computation of Latency for Dataflow Graphs Adnan Bouakaz Pascal Fradet Alain Girault

Symbolic Computation of Latency for Dataflow Graphs Adnan Bouakaz Pascal Fradet Alain Girault SYNCHRON International Workshop, Bamberg December 7th, 2016 Introduction Outline Introduction 1 Application model Scheduling policy Symbolic

793 views • 37 slides
The R ole of Benchmarking in Symbolic Computation (Position Paper) James Davenport Thanks to

The R ole of Benchmarking in Symbolic Computation (Position Paper) James Davenport Thanks to

The R ole of Benchmarking in Symbolic Computation (Position Paper) James Davenport Thanks to Alessandro Cimatti for the SMT graphs University of Bath 21 September 2018 James Davenport (Bath) R ole of Benchmarking in Symbolic

519 views • 26 slides
Symbolic computation to determine parameter regions for multistaionarity in models of the MAPK

Symbolic computation to determine parameter regions for multistaionarity in models of the MAPK

Introduction Results Symbolic computation to determine parameter regions for multistaionarity in models of the MAPK network Matthew England - Coventry University Joint work with: R. Bradford, J.H. Davenport, H. Errami, V. Gerdt, D. Grigoriev,

827 views • 44 slides
SC 2 challenges: when Satisfiability Checking and Symbolic Computation join forces James H.

SC 2 challenges: when Satisfiability Checking and Symbolic Computation join forces James H.

SC 2 challenges: when Satisfiability Checking and Symbolic Computation join forces James H. Davenport, Pascal Fontaine, Alberto Griggio (and the others partners whose details wouldnt fit) 1 University of Bath, LORIA, Fondazione Bruno Kessler

592 views • 8 slides
SC 2 : Satisfiability Checking meets Symbolic Computation: www.sc-square.org James Davenport

SC 2 : Satisfiability Checking meets Symbolic Computation: www.sc-square.org James Davenport

SC 2 : Satisfiability Checking meets Symbolic Computation: www.sc-square.org James Davenport Hebron &amp; Medlock Professor of Information Technology 1 University of Bath (U.K.) 4 August 2016 1 Thanks to John Abbott, Erika Abrah am, Bernd

795 views • 19 slides
Datastream computation of graph biconnectivity: Articulation Points, Bridges, and Biconnected

Datastream computation of graph biconnectivity: Articulation Points, Bridges, and Biconnected

Datastream computation of graph biconnectivity: Articulation Points, Bridges, and Biconnected Components G. Ausiello D. Firmani L. Laura Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica Sapienza University of Rome Via Ariosto, 25. 00185 Rome,

468 views • 32 slides
SC 2 : Satisfiability Checking and Symbolic Computation: www.sc-square.org James Davenport Hebron

SC 2 : Satisfiability Checking and Symbolic Computation: www.sc-square.org James Davenport Hebron

SC 2 : Satisfiability Checking and Symbolic Computation: www.sc-square.org James Davenport Hebron &amp; Medlock Professor of Information Technology 1 University of Bath (U.K.) Fulbright Scholar (NYU) 12 May 2017 1 Thanks to Erika Abrah

1.5k views • 149 slides
Accelerating Winograd Convolutions using Symbolic Computation and Meta-programming A. Mazaheri 1 ,

Accelerating Winograd Convolutions using Symbolic Computation and Meta-programming A. Mazaheri 1 ,

Accelerating Winograd Convolutions using Symbolic Computation and Meta-programming A. Mazaheri 1 , T. Beringer 1 , M. Moskewicz 2 , F. Wolf 1 , A. Jannesari 3 1 TU Darmstadt, 2 Tesla Inc., 3 Iowa State University 30.04.2020 EuroSys20,

386 views • 24 slides
A dynamic symbolic geometry environment based on the GrbnerCover algorithm for the computation of

A dynamic symbolic geometry environment based on the GrbnerCover algorithm for the computation of

A dynamic symbolic geometry environment based on the GrbnerCover algorithm for the computation of geometric loci and envelopes. M. A. Abnades, CES Felipe II UCM, Aranjuez, Spain F. Botana, U. Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain

457 views • 12 slides
Games People Play SCOTT WESTON Site Building Track, May 21, 2013 Building Bridges, Connecting

Games People Play SCOTT WESTON Site Building Track, May 21, 2013 Building Bridges, Connecting

Games People Play SCOTT WESTON Site Building Track, May 21, 2013 Building Bridges, Connecting Communities Resources Lots of links in Duo Consulting Blog http://bit.ly/QQDf Download these slides from DC-PDX

738 views • 46 slides
Symbolic Execution Builds predicates that characterize Conditions for executing paths

Symbolic Execution Builds predicates that characterize Conditions for executing paths

Symbolic Execution Builds predicates that characterize Conditions for executing paths Symbolic Execution and Proof of Effects of the execution on program state Properties Bridges program behavior to logic Finds important

309 views • 6 slides
DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION FOR ISLAMIC ART BUILDING BRIDGES PROGRAM 1 DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION FOR

DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION FOR ISLAMIC ART BUILDING BRIDGES PROGRAM 1 DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION FOR

DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION FOR ISLAMIC ART BUILDING BRIDGES PROGRAM 1 DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION FOR ISLAMIC ART BUILDING BRIDGES PROGRAM PROGRAM STAFF Aly Solot, Program Assistant: ASolot@DDCF.org Jeremy Williams, Webinar Producer: Jwilliams@DDCF.org

211 views • 18 slides
Logic Programming Computational Model Temur Kutsia Research Institute for Symbolic Computation

Logic Programming Computational Model Temur Kutsia Research Institute for Symbolic Computation

Logic Programming Computational Model Temur Kutsia Research Institute for Symbolic Computation Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria kutsia@risc.jku.at Contents Preliminaries Abstract Interpreter Choice Points Basic Notions Term:

228 views • 12 slides
Information Systems SQL Temur Kutsia Research Institute for Symbolic Computation Johannes

Information Systems SQL Temur Kutsia Research Institute for Symbolic Computation Johannes

Information Systems SQL Temur Kutsia Research Institute for Symbolic Computation Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria kutsia@risc.uni-linz.ac.at Outline SQL Table Creation Populating and Modifying Tables Querying SQL SQL: a

766 views • 48 slides
Machine Learning to Steer Symbolic Computation from its Worst Case Complexity Matthew England

Machine Learning to Steer Symbolic Computation from its Worst Case Complexity Matthew England

Introduction Prior Work Our Recent Work Machine Learning to Steer Symbolic Computation from its Worst Case Complexity Matthew England Coventry University BCTCS and AlgoUK 2020 36th British Colloquium for Theoretical Computer Science Swansea

721 views • 44 slides
Building Bridges, What resources do you think are needed to One Reviewer at a Time mentor

Building Bridges, What resources do you think are needed to One Reviewer at a Time mentor

Reflection Questions: Building Bridges, What resources do you think are needed to One Reviewer at a Time mentor reviewers who are new to the EER community? How can we engage The Journal of Engineering Education those who are at the

644 views • 16 slides

More recommend