the power of satisfiability checking
play

The Power of Satisfiability Checking Erika Abrah am RWTH Aachen - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 10, 2023 •366 likes •1.38k views

The Power of Satisfiability Checking Erika Abrah am RWTH Aachen University, Germany ECSS 2016 Informatics Driving the Digital World Budapest, Hungary, October 24-26, 2016 Erika Abrah am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 1 /

  1. SMT-LIB theories Quantifier-free integer/rational difference logic x − y ∼ 0 , ∼∈ { <, ≤ , = , ≥ , > } Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 13 / 43

  2. 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 - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 13 / 43

  3. 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 - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 13 / 43

  4. SMT-LIB theories Combined theories 2 f ( x ) + 5 y > 0 Source: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/logics.shtml Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 13 / 43

  5. Google Scholar search for “SAT modulo theories” Erika ´ 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 14 / 43

  6. Part I: Some historical notes Part II: One of the major ingredients of success: Strategic combinations of decision procedures ...in SAT solving... ...in SMT solving... ...in theory solving. Part III: How satisfiability checking drives the digital world Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 15 / 43

  7. What does “strategic combination” mean? ? + = Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 16 / 43

  8. What does “strategic combination” mean? ? + = Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 16 / 43

  9. What does “strategic combination” mean? ! + = Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 16 / 43

  10. Part I: Some historical notes Part II: One of the major ingredients of success: Strategic combinations of decision procedures ...in SAT solving... ...in SMT solving... ...in theory solving. Part III: How satisfiability checking drives the digital world Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 17 / 43

  11. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  12. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ 0 1 . . . c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ 1 0 1 0 . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  13. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 1 0 1 0 . . . 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  14. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 1 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  15. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c c 1 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  16. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c c 1 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  17. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ 0 1 . . . c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ 1 0 1 0 . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  18. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ 1 0 1 0 . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  19. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ 0 1 0 . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  20. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  21. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation + Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 18 / 43

  22. Resolution Assumption: conjunctive normal form (CNF) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 19 / 43

  23. Resolution Assumption: conjunctive normal form (CNF) Derivation rule form: antecendent 1 antecendent n . . . Rule name consequent Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 19 / 43

  24. 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 - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 19 / 43

  25. 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 ) ∃ x . C x ∧ C ¬ x ∧ C ↔ Resolvents ( C x , C ¬ x ) ∧ C Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 19 / 43

  26. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation + Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 20 / 43

  27. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation + Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 0 1 0 . . . 0 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Resolution c 4 : ( ¬ b ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 20 / 43

  28. DPLL SAT solving with conflict-directed clause learning Assumption: formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) Ingredients: Enumeration Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation Ingredients: Enumeration + Boolean constraint propagation + Resolution c 1 : ( ¬ a ∨ b ) ∧ a 0 1 . . . b c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) ∧ 1 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) ∧ c 0 c 4 : ( ¬ b ) ∧ 1 0 . . . 0 0 c 3 : ( ¬ b ∨ c ) c 2 : ( ¬ b ∨ ¬ c ) Resolution c 4 : ( ¬ b ) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 20 / 43

  29. Part I: Some historical notes Part II: One of the major ingredients of success: Strategic combinations of decision procedures ...in SAT solving... ...in SMT solving... ...in theory solving. Part III: How satisfiability checking drives the digital world Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 21 / 43

  30. (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 - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 22 / 43

  31. Less lazy SMT solving Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  32. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  33. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  34. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d SAT solver Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  35. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a SAT solver Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  36. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b SAT solver Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  37. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  38. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 SAT Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  39. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b , ¬ c SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  40. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b , ¬ c , d SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  41. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b , ¬ c , d SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 , x 2 � 1 , x 2 < 0 Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  42. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b , ¬ c , d SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 , x 2 � 1 , x 2 < 0 UNSAT: ¬ ( x 2 < 0) Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  43. Less lazy SMT solving ( x < 0 ∨ x > 2) ∧ ( x 2 = 1 ∨ x 2 < 0) ( ) ∧ ( ) ∧ ( ¬ d ) a ∨ b c ∨ d ¬ a , b , ¬ c , d SAT solver x ≥ 0 , x > 2 , x 2 � 1 , x 2 < 0 UNSAT: ¬ ( x 2 < 0) Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 23 / 43

  44. Some theory solver candidates for arithmetic theories Linear real arithmetic: Linear integer arithmetic: Simplex Cutting planes, Gomory cuts Ellipsoid method Branch-and-bound (incomplete) Fourier-Motzkin variable elimination Bit-blasting (eager) (mostly preprocessing) Interval constraint propagation Interval constraint propagation (incomplete) (incomplete) Non-linear real arithmetic: Non-linear integer arithmetic: Cylindrical algebraic decomposition Generalised branch-and-bound (incomplete) Gr¨ obner bases (mostly preprocessing/simplification) Bit-blasting (eager, incomplete) Virtual substitution (focus on low degrees) Interval constraint propagation (incomplete) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 24 / 43

  45. Problem solved? Can we use implementations of those methods out of the box? Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 25 / 43

  46. Problem solved? Can we use implementations of those methods out of the box? Theory solvers should be SMT-compliant, i.e., ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction they should Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF work incrementally, SAT solver SAT or UNSAT generate lemmas explaining SAT inconsistencies, and theory constraints or + lemmas UNSAT be able to backtrack. Theory solver(s) Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 25 / 43

  47. Problem solved? Can we use implementations of those methods out of the box? Theory solvers should be SMT-compliant, i.e., ϕ quantifier-free FO formula Boolean abstraction they should Tseitin’s transformation ϕ ′ propositional logic formula in CNF work incrementally, SAT solver SAT or UNSAT generate lemmas explaining SAT inconsistencies, and theory constraints or + lemmas UNSAT be able to backtrack. Theory solver(s) Originally, the mentioned methods are not SMT-compliant. SMT-adaptations can be tricky, but can lead to beautiful novel algorithms. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 25 / 43

  48. Satisfiablility checking and symbolic computation Bridging two communities to solve real problems http://www.sc-square.org/CSA/welcome.html Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 26 / 43

  49. Part I: Some historical notes Part II: One of the major ingredients of success: Strategic combinations of decision procedures ...in SAT solving... ...in SMT solving... ...in theory solving. Part III: How satisfiability checking drives the digital world Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 27 / 43

  50. The SMT-RAT library SMT Solver Strategic composition of SMT-RAT modules SMT real-algebraic toolbox preprocessing, SAT and theory solver modules CArL real-arithmetic computations gmp, Eigen3, boost Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 28 / 43

  51. Strategic composition of solver modules in SMT-RAT SMT solver Manager Strategy . . . SAT Condition Condition Condition solver . . . Module Module Module Module Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 29 / 43

  52. A pizza positioning example y 40 ( x 3 , y 3 ) ( x 1 , y 1 ) 30 r 3 r 1 20 r 2 10 ( x 2 , y 2 ) x 10 20 30 40 50 60 3 2 3 ( r i = 13 ∨ r i = 10 ∨ r i = 25 2 ∨ r i = 27 � 2 ) ∧ � � ¬ ( r i = r j ) ∧ i = 1 i = 1 j = i + 1 3 � ( x i + r i ≤ 60 ∧ x i − r i ≥ 0 ∧ y i + r i ≤ 40 ∧ y i − r i ≥ 0) ∧ i = 1 2 3 ( x i − x j ) 2 + ( y i − y j ) 2 ≥ ( r i + r j ) 2 � � i = 1 j = i + 1 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 30 / 43

  53. A pizza positioning example Z3, the currently most popular SMT solver, could not solve this problem within several minutes. 3 2 3 ( r i = 13 ∨ r i = 10 ∨ r i = 25 2 ∨ r i = 27 � 2 ) ∧ � � ¬ ( r i = r j ) ∧ i = 1 i = 1 j = i + 1 3 � ( x i + r i ≤ 60 ∧ x i − r i ≥ 0 ∧ y i + r i ≤ 40 ∧ y i − r i ≥ 0) ∧ i = 1 2 3 ( x i − x j ) 2 + ( y i − y j ) 2 ≥ ( r i + r j ) 2 � � i = 1 j = i + 1 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 30 / 43

  54. A pizza positioning example Z3, the currently most popular SMT solver, could not solve this problem within several minutes. Combining interval constraint propagation and virtual substitution using SMT-RAT finished in a seond! 3 2 3 ( r i = 13 ∨ r i = 10 ∨ r i = 25 2 ∨ r i = 27 � 2 ) ∧ � � ¬ ( r i = r j ) ∧ i = 1 i = 1 j = i + 1 3 � ( x i + r i ≤ 60 ∧ x i − r i ≥ 0 ∧ y i + r i ≤ 40 ∧ y i − r i ≥ 0) ∧ i = 1 2 3 ( x i − x j ) 2 + ( y i − y j ) 2 ≥ ( r i + r j ) 2 � � i = 1 j = i + 1 Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 30 / 43

  55. Some other key issues Heuristics!!! Lemma generation Efficient data structures . . . Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 31 / 43

  56. Part I: Some historical notes Part II: One of the major ingredients of success: Strategic combinations of decision procedures ...in SAT solving... ...in SMT solving... ...in theory solving. Part III: How satisfiability checking drives the digital world Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 32 / 43

  57. Embedding SAT/SMT solvers Environment Software Solution engine Logical SAT/SMT problem Problem solver specification Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 33 / 43

  58. Embedding SAT/SMT solvers Environment Software Solution engine Logical SAT/SMT problem Problem solver specification Encoding: SAT/SMT-LIB standard elaborate encoding is extremely important! Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 33 / 43

  59. Embedding SAT/SMT solvers Environment Software Solution engine Logical SAT/SMT problem Problem solver specification Encoding: SAT/SMT-LIB standard elaborate encoding is extremely important! standard input syntax → free solver choice Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 33 / 43

  60. Embedding SAT/SMT solvers Environment Software Solution engine Logical SAT/SMT problem Problem solver specification Encoding: SAT/SMT-LIB standard elaborate encoding is extremely important! standard input syntax → free solver choice In the following: applications of SMT solvers Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 33 / 43

  61. Bounded model checking for C/C++ Source: D. Kroening. CBMC home page. http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/ Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 34 / 43

  62. Bounded model checking for C/C++ Logical encoding of finite unsafe paths Source: D. Kroening. CBMC home page. http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/ Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 34 / 43

  63. Bounded model checking for C/C++ Logical encoding of finite unsafe paths Encoding idea: Init ( s 0 ) ∧ Trans ( s 0 , s 1 ) ∧ . . . ∧ Trans ( s k − 1 , s k ) ∧ Bad ( s 0 , . . . , s k ) Source: D. Kroening. CBMC home page. http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/ Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 34 / 43

  64. Bounded model checking for C/C++ Logical encoding of finite unsafe paths Encoding idea: Init ( s 0 ) ∧ Trans ( s 0 , s 1 ) ∧ . . . ∧ Trans ( s k − 1 , s k ) ∧ Bad ( s 0 , . . . , s k ) Application examples: Error localisation and explanation Equivalence checking Test case generation Worst-case execution time Source: D. Kroening. CBMC home page. http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/ Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 34 / 43

  65. BMC for graph transformation systems Source: T. Isenberg, D. Steenken, and H. Wehrheim. Bounded Model Checking of Graph Transformation Systems via SMT Solving. In Proc. FMOODS/FORTE’13. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 35 / 43

  66. BMC for graph transformation systems Encode initial and forbidden state graphs and the graph transformation rules in first-order logic. ↓ Apply bounded model checking Source: T. Isenberg, D. Steenken, and H. Wehrheim. Bounded Model Checking of Graph Transformation Systems via SMT Solving. In Proc. FMOODS/FORTE’13. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 35 / 43

  67. Hybrid systems reachability analysis Source: D. Bryce, J. Sun, P . Zuliani, Q. Wang, S. Gao, F. Shmarov, S. Kong, W. Chen, Z. Tavares. dReach home page. http://dreal.github.io/dReach/ Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 36 / 43

  68. Termination analysis for programs Source: T. Str¨ oder, C. Aschermann, F. Frohn, J. Hensel, J. Giesl. AProVE: Termination and memory safety of C programs (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS’15. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 37 / 43

  69. Termination analysis for programs Term rewrite system Source: T. Str¨ oder, C. Aschermann, F. Frohn, J. Hensel, J. Giesl. AProVE: Termination and memory safety of C programs (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS’15. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 37 / 43

  70. Termination analysis for programs Term rewrite system Term rewrite system Dependency pairs Chains Logical encoding for well-founded orders. Source: T. Str¨ oder, C. Aschermann, F. Frohn, J. Hensel, J. Giesl. AProVE: Termination and memory safety of C programs (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS’15. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 37 / 43

  71. jUnit RV : Runtime verification of multi-threaded, object-oriented systems Properties: linear temporal logics enriched with first-order theories Method: SMT solving + classical monitoring Source: N. Decker, M. Leucker, D. Thoma. Monitoring modulo theories. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 18(2):205-225, April 2016. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 38 / 43

  72. Planning Source: E. Scala, M. Ramirez, P . Haslum, S. Thiebaux. Numeric planning with disjunctive global constraints via SMT. In Proc. of ICASP’16. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 39 / 43

  73. Scheduling Source: C. Ans´ otegui, M. Bofill, M. Palah´ ı, J. Suy, M. Villaret. Satisfiability modulo theories: An efficient approach for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Proc. of SARA’11. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 40 / 43

  74. Deployment optimisation on the cloud Location (e.g, VMs, PCs, ...) Depoloyable Components User Constraints HTTP_Load_Balancer MySQL WordPress MySQL_1 WordPress_1 HTTP_Load_Balancer_1 WordPress_2 MySQL_2 WordPress_3 Source: E. ´ Abrah´ am, F. Corzilius, E. Broch Johnsen, G. Kremer, J. Mauro. Zephyrus2: On the fly deployment optimization using SMT and CP technologies. Submitted to SETTA’16. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 41 / 43

  75. Parameter synthesis for probabilistic systems . Katoen, E. ´ Source: C. Dehnert, S. Junges, N. Jansen, F. Corzilius, M. Volk, H. Bruintjes, J.-P Abrah´ am. PROPhESY: A probabilistic parameter synthesis tool. In Proc. of CAV’15. Erika ´ Abrah´ am - The Power of Satisfiability Checking 42 / 43

Recommend

3. Satisfiability Checking 3.1 SAT-Checking Procedures Verification Technology

3. Satisfiability Checking 3.1 SAT-Checking Procedures Verification Technology

Fachgebiet RechnerSysteme Technische Universitt Verification Technology Darmstadt 3. Satisfiability Checking Computer Systems Lab 1 3. Satisfiability Checking 3 3. Satisfiability Checking 3.1 SAT-Checking Procedures Verification

278 views • 11 slides
Focused Random Walk with Configuration Checking and Break Minimum for Satisfiability Chuan Luo 1

Focused Random Walk with Configuration Checking and Break Minimum for Satisfiability Chuan Luo 1

Introduction Configuration Checking The CCBM Heuristic Experimental Analysis Conclusion References Focused Random Walk with Configuration Checking and Break Minimum for Satisfiability Chuan Luo 1 Shaowei Cai 2 Wei Wu 1 , 3 Kaile Su 3 , 4 1

584 views • 32 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
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
Building Bridges between Symbolic Computation and Satisfiability Checking Erika Abrah am

Building Bridges between Symbolic Computation and Satisfiability Checking Erika Abrah am

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:

2.3k views • 199 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
Variable and clause elimination for LTL satisfiability checking Martin Suda Max Planck Institut

Variable and clause elimination for LTL satisfiability checking Martin Suda Max Planck Institut

Variable and clause elimination for LTL satisfiability checking Martin Suda Max Planck Institut fr Informatik MACIS-2013 Introduction LTL preliminaries Labels Elimination in LTL Experimental evaluation Conclusion Linear temporal logic

1.17k views • 69 slides
VLDL Satisfiability and Model Checking via Tree Automata Alexander Weinert Saarland University

VLDL Satisfiability and Model Checking via Tree Automata Alexander Weinert Saarland University

VLDL Satisfiability and Model Checking via Tree Automata Alexander Weinert Saarland University December 12th, 2017 FSTTCS 2017 - Kanpur, India Alexander Weinert Saarland University VLDL Satisfiability and Model Checking 1/26 VLDL VLDL

1.91k views • 174 slides
Tree-shaped one-pass tableau systems for Linear Temporal Logic satisfiability checking Nicola

Tree-shaped one-pass tableau systems for Linear Temporal Logic satisfiability checking Nicola

Tree-shaped one-pass tableau systems for Linear Temporal Logic satisfiability checking Nicola Gigante University of Udine, Italy Joint work with Angelo Montanari, Mark Reynolds, Luca Geatti The need for formal verification Safety-critical

489 views • 47 slides
Lessons between Computer Algebra and Verification/Satisfiability Checking James Davenport 1

Lessons between Computer Algebra and Verification/Satisfiability Checking James Davenport 1

Lessons between Computer Algebra and Verification/Satisfiability Checking James Davenport 1 University of Bath J.H.Davenport@bath.ac.uk 20 June 2018 1 Thanks to EU H2020-FETOPEN-2016-2017-CSA project SC 2 (712689) Davenport Lessons between

608 views • 27 slides
NP Reasoning in the Monotone -Calculus (IJCAR 2020) Daniel Hausmann and Lutz Schr oder

NP Reasoning in the Monotone -Calculus (IJCAR 2020) Daniel Hausmann and Lutz Schr oder

NP Reasoning in the Monotone -Calculus (IJCAR 2020) Daniel Hausmann and Lutz Schr oder University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany Highlights 2020 16 September 2020 0 / 5 Satisfiability Checking Complexities of satisfiability checking for

162 views • 12 slides
2 Temporal Logic Model Checking Many designs, especially digital hardware designs, can profitably

2 Temporal Logic Model Checking Many designs, especially digital hardware designs, can profitably

Bounded Model Checking Using Satisfiability Solving Edmund Clarke 1 , Armin Biere 2 , Richard Raimi 3 , and Yunshan Zhu 4 1 Computer Science Department, CMU, 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA, emc@cs.cmu.edu 2 Institute of Computer

600 views • 20 slides
The Satisfiability Problem [HMU06,Chp.10b] Satisfiability (SAT) Problem Cooks

The Satisfiability Problem [HMU06,Chp.10b] Satisfiability (SAT) Problem Cooks

The Satisfiability Problem [HMU06,Chp.10b] Satisfiability (SAT) Problem Cooks Theorem: An NP-Complete Problem Restricted SAT: CSAT, k-SAT, 3SAT 1 Satisfiability (SAT) Problem 2 Boolean Expressions Boolean, or

727 views • 57 slides
Another approach to runtime checking Typical runtime checking is by duplicating entire CPU

Another approach to runtime checking Typical runtime checking is by duplicating entire CPU

Another approach to runtime checking Typical runtime checking is by duplicating entire CPU Expensive in power, area No protection from design errors Does not survive permanent faults Last time we saw an approach that leveraged

246 views • 7 slides
Satisfiability Warsaw lectures V.W. Marek Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky

Satisfiability Warsaw lectures V.W. Marek Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky

Satisfiability Satisfiability Warsaw lectures V.W. Marek Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky October 2013 1 / 1 Satisfiability What it is about? Satisfiability is a popular logic-based formalism to represent

1.52k views • 135 slides
Non-cyclic sorts for first-order satisfiability (or how to win first-order satisfiability at CASC)

Non-cyclic sorts for first-order satisfiability (or how to win first-order satisfiability at CASC)

Non-cyclic sorts for first-order satisfiability (or how to win first-order satisfiability at CASC) Konstantin Korovin 1 The University of Manchester korovin@cs.man.ac.uk FroCoS 2013 1 supported by a Royal Society University Fellowship

648 views • 54 slides
DRAT-trim: Efficient Checking and Trimming Using Expressive Clausal Proofs Nathan Wetzler

DRAT-trim: Efficient Checking and Trimming Using Expressive Clausal Proofs Nathan Wetzler

DRAT-trim: Efficient Checking and Trimming Using Expressive Clausal Proofs Nathan Wetzler Marijn J.H. Heule Warren A. Hunt, Jr. The University of Texas at Austin Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Solving (SAT)

531 views • 33 slides
Planning as Satisfiability Enrico Giunchiglia Laboratory of Systems and Technologies for

Planning as Satisfiability Enrico Giunchiglia Laboratory of Systems and Technologies for

Planning Classical Planning Satisfiability of Boolean formulas (SAT) and Planning QBFs satisfiability and Planning Planning as Satisfiability Enrico Giunchiglia Laboratory of Systems and Technologies for Automated Reasoning (STAR-Lab) DIBRIS

1.5k views • 137 slides
Maximum Satisfiability Ruben Martins http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mheule/15816-f19/ Automated

Maximum Satisfiability Ruben Martins http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mheule/15816-f19/ Automated

Maximum Satisfiability Ruben Martins http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mheule/15816-f19/ Automated Reasoning and Satisfiability, October 1, 2019 1/41 What is Boolean Satisfiability? Fundamental problem in Computer Science The first problem to be

1.46k views • 123 slides
Checking solutions efficiently The class P : set of languages L f decidable in time O ( n c ).

Checking solutions efficiently The class P : set of languages L f decidable in time O ( n c ).

Checking solutions efficiently The class P : set of languages L f decidable in time O ( n c ). Function f can be computed in poly-time. The Class NP What if dont know how to compute f in poly-time? Nabil Mustafa 3-CNF satisfiability. Not known

201 views • 5 slides
On Clause Learning Algorithms for Satisfiability Sam Buss SDF@60 Kurt G odel Research Center

On Clause Learning Algorithms for Satisfiability Sam Buss SDF@60 Kurt G odel Research Center

Clause Learning On Clause Learning Algorithms for Satisfiability Sam Buss SDF@60 Kurt G odel Research Center Vienna July 13, 2013 Clause Learning Satisfiability Satisfiability ( Sat ) An instance of Satisfiability ( Sat ) is a set of

483 views • 23 slides
Model-Constructing Satisfiability Calculus Dejan Jovanovi c Clark Barrett Leonardo de Moura

Model-Constructing Satisfiability Calculus Dejan Jovanovi c Clark Barrett Leonardo de Moura

Model-Constructing Satisfiability Calculus Dejan Jovanovi c Clark Barrett Leonardo de Moura SRI International NYU Microsoft Research Satisfiability Modulo Theories and DPLL(T) Problem Check a given formula for satisfiability modulo the

889 views • 65 slides
Horn Formulas 1 Efficient satisfiability checks In the following: A very efficient

Horn Formulas 1 Efficient satisfiability checks In the following: A very efficient

Propositional Logic Horn Formulas 1 Efficient satisfiability checks In the following: A very efficient satisfiability check for the special class of Horn formulas. Efficient satisfiability checks for arbitrary formulas in CNF:

459 views • 6 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 11: Model checking for Computation Tree

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 11: Model checking for Computation Tree

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 11: Model checking for Computation Tree Logic Dominic Mulligan Based on previous slides by Alan Mycroft and Mike Gordon Programming, Logic, and Semantics Group University of Cambridge

402 views • 25 slides

More recommend