Results 1  10
of
25
Lazy Satisfiability Modulo Theories
 Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation
, 2007
"... Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) is the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a firstorder formula with respect to some decidable firstorder theory T (SMT (T)). These problems are typically not handled adequately by standard automated theorem provers. SMT is being recognized as increasingl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 74 (32 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) is the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a firstorder formula with respect to some decidable firstorder theory T (SMT (T)). These problems are typically not handled adequately by standard automated theorem provers. SMT is being recognized as increasingly important due to its applications in many domains in different communities, in particular in formal verification. An amount of papers with novel and very efficient techniques for SMT has been published in the last years, and some very efficient SMT tools are now available. Typical SMT (T) problems require testing the satisfiability of formulas which are Boolean combinations of atomic propositions and atomic expressions in T, so that heavy Boolean reasoning must be efficiently combined with expressive theoryspecific reasoning. The dominating approach to SMT (T), called lazy approach, is based on the integration of a SAT solver and of a decision procedure able to handle sets of atomic constraints in T (Tsolver), handling respectively the Boolean and the theoryspecific components of reasoning. Unfortunately, neither the problem of building an efficient SMT solver, nor even that of acquiring a comprehensive background knowledge in lazy SMT, is of simple solution. In this paper we present an extensive survey of SMT, with particular focus on the lazy approach. We survey, classify and analyze from a theoryindependent perspective the most effective techniques and optimizations which are of interest for lazy SMT and which have been proposed in various communities; we discuss their relative benefits and drawbacks; we provide some guidelines about their choice and usage; we also analyze the features for SAT solvers and Tsolvers which make them more suitable for an integration. The ultimate goals of this paper are to become a source of a common background knowledge and terminology for students and researchers in different areas, to provide a reference guide for developers of SMT tools, and to stimulate the crossfertilization of techniques and ideas among different communities.
Delayed theory combination vs. NelsonOppen for satisfiability modulo theories: A comparative analysis
 IN PROC. LPAR’06, VOLUME 4246 OF LNAI
, 2006
"... Many approaches for Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT(T)) rely on the integration between a SAT solver and a decision procedure for sets of literals in the background theory T (Tsolver). When T is the combination T1 ∪ T2 of two simpler theories, the approach is typically handled by means of Nelson ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Many approaches for Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT(T)) rely on the integration between a SAT solver and a decision procedure for sets of literals in the background theory T (Tsolver). When T is the combination T1 ∪ T2 of two simpler theories, the approach is typically handled by means of NelsonOppen’s (NO) theory combination schema in which two specific Tsolvers deduce and exchange (disjunctions of) interface equalities. In recent papers we have proposed a new approach to SMT(T1 ∪ T2), called Delayed Theory Combination (DTC). Here part or all the (possibly very expensive) task of deducing interface equalities is played by the SAT solver itself, at the potential cost of an enlargement of the boolean search space. In principle this enlargement could be up to exponential in the number of interface equalities generated. In this paper we show that this estimate was too pessimistic. We present a comparative analysis of DTC vs. NO for SMT(T1 ∪T2), which shows that, using stateoftheart SATsolving techniques, the amount of boolean branches performed by DTC can be upper bounded by the number of deductions and boolean branches performed by NO on the same problem. We prove the result for different deduction capabilities of the Tsolvers and for both convex and nonconvex theories.
Connecting manysorted theories
 The Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 2007
"... Abstract. Basically, the connection of two manysorted theories is obtained by taking their disjoint union, and then connecting the two parts through connection functions that must behave like homomorphisms on the shared signature. We determine conditions under which decidability of the validity of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Basically, the connection of two manysorted theories is obtained by taking their disjoint union, and then connecting the two parts through connection functions that must behave like homomorphisms on the shared signature. We determine conditions under which decidability of the validity of universal formulae in the component theories transfers to their connection. In addition, we consider variants of the basic connection scheme. 1
Canonization for Disjoint Unions of Theories
, 2003
"... If there exist ecient procedures (canonizers) for reducing terms of two rstorder theories to canonical form, can one use them to construct such a procedure for terms of the disjoint union of the two theories? We prove this is possible whenever the original theories are convex. As an application, w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
If there exist ecient procedures (canonizers) for reducing terms of two rstorder theories to canonical form, can one use them to construct such a procedure for terms of the disjoint union of the two theories? We prove this is possible whenever the original theories are convex. As an application, we prove that algorithms for solving equations in the two theories (solvers) cannot be combined in a similar fashion. These results are relevant to the widely used Shostak's method for combining decision procedures for theories. They provide the rst rigorous answers to the questions about the possibility of directly combining canonizers and solvers.
A New Combination Procedure for the Word Problem that Generalizes Fusion Decidability Results in Modal Logics
 In David A. Basin and Michaël Rusinowitch, editors, IJCAR ’04
, 2004
"... Previous results for combining decision procedures for the word problem in the nondisjoint case do not apply to equational theories induced by modal logicswhose combination is not disjoint since they share the theory of Boolean algebras. Conversely, decidability results for the fusion of mod ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Previous results for combining decision procedures for the word problem in the nondisjoint case do not apply to equational theories induced by modal logicswhose combination is not disjoint since they share the theory of Boolean algebras. Conversely, decidability results for the fusion of modal logics are strongly tailored towards the special theories at hand, and thus do not generalize to other equational theories.
Integration and Optimization of Rulebased Constraint Solvers
, 2004
"... One lesson learned from practical constraint solving applications is that constraints are often heterogeneous. Solving such constraints requires a collaboration of constraint solvers. In this paper, we introduce a methodology for the tight integration of CHR constraint programs into one such progr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
One lesson learned from practical constraint solving applications is that constraints are often heterogeneous. Solving such constraints requires a collaboration of constraint solvers. In this paper, we introduce a methodology for the tight integration of CHR constraint programs into one such program. CHR is a highlevel rulebased language for writing constraint solvers and reasoning systems. A constraint solver is wellbehaved if it is terminating and conuent. When merging constraint solvers, this property may be lost. Based on previous results on CHR program analysis and transformation we show how to utilize completion to regain wellbehavedness. We identify a class of solvers whose union is always confluent and we show that for preserving termination such a class is hard to find. The merged and completed constraint solvers may contain redundant rules. Utilizing the notion of operational equivalence, which is decidable for wellbehaved CHR programs, we present a method to detect redundant rules in a CHR program.
On Combining Theories with Shared Set Operations
"... Abstract. We explore the problem of automated reasoning about the nondisjoint combination of theories that share set variables and operations. We prove a combination theorem and apply it to show the decidability of the satisfiability problem for a class of formulas obtained by applying propositional ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We explore the problem of automated reasoning about the nondisjoint combination of theories that share set variables and operations. We prove a combination theorem and apply it to show the decidability of the satisfiability problem for a class of formulas obtained by applying propositional operations to quantified formulas belonging to several expressive decidable logics. 1
Hierarchical and modular reasoning in complex theories: The case of local theory extensions
 In Proc. 6th Int. Symp. Frontiers of Combining Systems (FroCos 2007), LNCS 4720
, 2007
"... Abstract. We present an overview of results on hierarchical and modular reasoning in complex theories. We show that for a special type of extensions of a base theory, which we call local, hierarchic reasoning is possible (i.e. proof tasks in the extension can be hierarchically reduced to proof tasks ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We present an overview of results on hierarchical and modular reasoning in complex theories. We show that for a special type of extensions of a base theory, which we call local, hierarchic reasoning is possible (i.e. proof tasks in the extension can be hierarchically reduced to proof tasks w.r.t. the base theory). Many theories important for computer science or mathematics fall into this class (typical examples are theories of data structures, theories of free or monotone functions, but also functions occurring in mathematical analysis). In fact, it is often necessary to consider complex extensions, in which various types of functions or data structures need to be taken into account at the same time. We show how such local theory extensions can be identified and under which conditions locality is preserved when combining theories, and we investigate possibilities of efficient modular reasoning in such theory combinations. We present several examples of application domains where local theories and local theory extensions occur in a natural way. We show, in particular, that various phenomena analyzed in the verification literature can be explained in a unified way using the notion of locality. 1
Combining sets with cardinals
 J. of Automated Reasoning
"... Abstract. We introduce a quantifierfree settheoretic language for combining sets with elements in the presence of the cardinality operator. We prove that the language is decidable by providing a combination method specifically tailored to the combination domain of sets, cardinal numbers, and eleme ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We introduce a quantifierfree settheoretic language for combining sets with elements in the presence of the cardinality operator. We prove that the language is decidable by providing a combination method specifically tailored to the combination domain of sets, cardinal numbers, and elements. Our method uses as black boxes a decision procedure for the elements and a decision procedure for cardinal numbers. To be correct, our method requires that the theory of elements be stably infinite. However, we show that if we restrict set variables to range over finite sets only, then it is possible to modify our method so that it works even when the theory of the elements is not stably infinite. 1.
Satisfiability Modulo Theories
"... We present a general framework, DPLL(T ), for integrating decision procedures into the DPLL method. While its main motivation is producing fast solvers for the satisfiability of ground formulas in firstorder theories with decidable ground consequences, the framework is also useful in the propositio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a general framework, DPLL(T ), for integrating decision procedures into the DPLL method. While its main motivation is producing fast solvers for the satisfiability of ground formulas in firstorder theories with decidable ground consequences, the framework is also useful in the propositional case. SAT problems can often be converted into satisfiability problems modulo a theory T for which faster SAT methods than DPLL are known. We show how one can use DPLL(T ) to take advantage of this fact and achieve better performance.