1 Linear-time Reductions of Resolution Proofs Omer Bar-Ilan Oded Fuhrmann Shlomo Hoory Ohad Shacham Ofer Strichman Technion.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Exploiting SAT solvers in unbounded model checking
Advertisements

Hybrid BDD and All-SAT Method for Model Checking Orna Grumberg Joint work with Assaf Schuster and Avi Yadgar Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.
Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Superpolynomial Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space Chris Beck Princeton University Joint work with Paul Beame & Russell.
UIUC CS 497: Section EA Lecture #2 Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence Professor: Eyal Amir Spring Semester 2004.
Propositional and First Order Reasoning. Terminology Propositional variable: boolean variable (p) Literal: propositional variable or its negation p 
Proofs from SAT Solvers Yeting Ge ACSys NYU Nov
Theory of Computing Lecture 18 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Superpolynomial Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space Chris Beck Princeton University Joint work with Paul Beame & Russell.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View SAT.
1/30 SAT Solver Changki PSWLAB SAT Solver Daniel Kroening, Ofer Strichman.
IBM Labs in Haifa © 2005 IBM Corporation Adaptive Application of SAT Solving Techniques Ohad Shacham and Karen Yorav Presented by Sharon Barner.
Interpolants from Z3 proofs Ken McMillan Microsoft Research TexPoint fonts used in EMF: A A A A A.
The Theory of NP-Completeness
A Scalable Algorithm for Minimal Unsatisfiable Core Extraction Nachum Dershowitz¹ Ziyad Hanna² Alexander Nadel¹, ² 1 Tel-Aviv University 2 Intel SAT’06.
Reduction of Interpolants for Logic Synthesis John Backes Marc Riedel University of Minnesota Dept.
SAT and Model Checking. Bounded Model Checking (BMC) A.I. Planning problems: can we reach a desired state in k steps? Verification of safety properties:
Tuning SAT-checkers for Bounded Model-Checking A bounded guided tour Ofer Strichman Carnegie Mellon University.
Weizmann Institute Tuning SAT-checkers for Bounded Model-Checking A bounded guided tour Ofer Shtrichman Weizmann Institute & IBM (HRL)
Willis Lemasters Grant Conklin. Searching a tree recursively one branch at a time, abandoning any branch which does not satisfy the search constraints.
Plan for today Proof-system search ( ` ) Interpretation search ( ² ) Quantifiers Equality Decision procedures Induction Cross-cutting aspectsMain search.
On-The-Fly Resolve Trace Minimization Ohad Shacham and Karen Yorav IBM Haifa Research Laboratory.
1 Deciding separation formulas with SAT Ofer Strichman Sanjit A. Seshia Randal E. Bryant School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
Efficient SAT Solving for Non- clausal Formulas using DPLL, Graphs, and Watched-cuts Himanshu Jain Edmund M. Clarke.
1 Linear-time Reductions of Resolution Proofs Omer Bar-Ilan Oded Fuhrmann Shlomo Hoory Ohad Shacham Ofer Strichman Technion.
Technion 1 Generating minimum transitivity constraints in P-time for deciding Equality Logic Ofer Strichman and Mirron Rozanov Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Formal Verification Group © Copyright IBM Corporation 2008 IBM Haifa Labs SAT-based unbounded model checking using interpolation Based on a paper “Interpolation.
1 A theory-based decision heuristic for DPLL(T) Dan Goldwasser Ofer Strichman Shai Fine Haifa university TechnionIBM-HRL.
A Compressed Breadth-First Search for Satisfiability DoRon B. Motter and Igor L. Markov University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1 Abstraction Refinement for Bounded Model Checking Anubhav Gupta, CMU Ofer Strichman, Technion Highly Jet Lagged.
Ofer Strichman, Technion 1 Decision Procedures in First Order Logic Part II – Equality Logic and Uninterpreted Functions.
SAT Solving Presented by Avi Yadgar. The SAT Problem Given a Boolean formula, look for assignment A for such that.  A is a solution for. A partial assignment.
On Solving Presburger and Linear Arithmetic with SAT Ofer Strichman Carnegie Mellon University.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures in First Order Logic Decision Procedures for Equality Logic.
Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs)
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2012/11/6 P: the class of problems which can be solved by a deterministic polynomial algorithm. NP : the class of decision.
On Bridging Simulation and Formal Verification Eugene Goldberg Cadence Research Labs (USA) VMCAI-2008, San Francisco, USA.
Solvers for the Problem of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) Will Klieber Aug 31, 2011 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you.
1 Agenda Modeling problems in Propositional Logic SAT basics Decision heuristics Non-chronological Backtracking Learning with Conflict Clauses SAT and.
Techniques for Proving NP-Completeness Show that a special case of the problem you are interested in is NP- complete. For example: The problem of finding.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View BDDs.
Unification Algorithm Input: a finite set Σ of simple expressions Output: a mgu for Σ (if Σ is unifiable) 1. Set k = 0 and  0 = . 2. If Σ  k is a singleton,
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2 Cook ’ s Theorem (1971) Prof. Cook Toronto U. Receiving Turing Award (1982) Discussing difficult problems: worst case.
On the Relation between SAT and BDDs for Equivalence Checking Sherief Reda Rolf Drechsler Alex Orailoglu Computer Science & Engineering Dept. University.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View BDDs.
Boolean Satisfiability Present and Future
Resolution proof system Presenter Valeriy Balabanov NTU, GIEE, AlCom lab.
Accelerating Random Walks Wei Wei and Bart Selman.
Answer Extraction To use resolution to answer questions, for example a query of the form  X C(X), we must keep track of the substitutions made during.
1 Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) Class Presentation By Girish Paladugu.
Knowledge Repn. & Reasoning Lecture #9: Propositional Logic UIUC CS 498: Section EA Professor: Eyal Amir Fall Semester 2005.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2 Review: Finding lower bound by problem transformation Problem X reduces to problem Y (X  Y ) iff X can be solved by.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman 1 Decision Procedures in First Order Logic Decision Procedures for Equality Logic.
Resolution Proofs as a Data Structure for Logic Synthesis John Backes Marc Riedel Electrical.
Hybrid BDD and All-SAT Method for Model Checking
Resolution proof system
Gábor Kusper University of Linz RISC Austria
Parallelism in SAT Solvers
A theory-based decision heuristic for DPLL(T)
Solving Linear Arithmetic with SAT-based MC
Deriving small unsatisfiable cores with dominators
Simple Circuit-Based SAT Solver
Mining backbone literals in incremental SAT
ECE 667 Synthesis and Verification of Digital Circuits
Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View
Resolution Proofs for Combinational Equivalence
Efficient MUS Extraction with Resolution
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power
Decision heuristics based on an Abstraction/Refinement model
Faster Extraction of High-Level Minimal Unsatisfiable Cores
Verifying Clausal Proofs, DRUPing and Interpolants SAT/SMT Seminar
Presentation transcript:

1 Linear-time Reductions of Resolution Proofs Omer Bar-Ilan Oded Fuhrmann Shlomo Hoory Ohad Shacham Ofer Strichman Technion

2 Resolution Binary resolution: Modern SAT solvers are implicit resolution engines Learn new clauses through resolution. Upon request, they produce a resolution proof.

3 Uses of the resolution graphs Extraction of unsatisfiable core The subset of original clauses that were used in the proof Computing Interpolants For unbounded SAT-based model checking Incremental satisfiability Which learned clauses can be reused in the next instance

4 Resolution graph / unsat core () unsatisfiable core

5 The smaller the better Many techniques for shrinking the proof / core All exponential Most popular: run-till-fix Smaller proofs  shorter verification time As a result – short time outs. A good criterion: By how much can you shrink the core in the first T sec? ?

6 In this work we investigate... Linear-time Reductions of Resolution Proofs (linear in the size of the proof graph) We propose two techniques: 1. Recycle – units 1. Recycle – pivots

7 1. Recycle-units / observation When learning (resolving) a new clause in SAT, The resolving clauses are not satisfied Hence, the resolution-variable is unassigned l l 1 : l l 2 l 1 l 2

8 1. Recycle-units Suppose that the pivot’s constant value is learned later on. We will use it to simplify the resolution proof.

9 1. Recycle-units / easy case

10 1. Recycle-units / easy case

11 1. Recycle-units

12 1. Recycle-units Reduced proof by 4 clauses Reduced core by 1 clause

13 1. Recycle-units / beware of cycles By making this connection we created cyclic reasoning

14 1. Recycle-units / beware of cycles Solution: mark antecedents of units apply only to marked nodes

15 1. Recycle-units / beware of cycles A little tricky to make efficient. The graph changes all the time. Inefficient to update antecedents relations. Strategy Maintain a projection of the graph to units.

16 1. Recycle-units / maintain a units graph unit other

17 2. Recycle-pivots / Example (tree)

18 2. Recycle-pivots / Example (tree) {2} {-2} {2,1}{2,-1} {2,-1,-2} {2,-1}

19 2. Recycle-pivots / Example (tree)

20 2. Recycle-pivots / DAGs Resolution graphs are DAGs So, a node is on more than one path to the empty clause

21 2. Recycle-pivots / DAGs Resolution graphs are DAGs So, a node is on more than one path to the empty clause

22 2. Recycle-pivots / DAGs

23 2. Recycle-pivots / DAGs Does A dominate B ? Dominance relation can be found in O(|E| log |V|) A B () Problem: need to be updated each time.

24 2. Recycle-pivots / DAGs Our current implementation: Stop propagating information across nodes with more than one child {2} {-2} {2,1}{2,-1} {2,-1,-2} {2,-1}

25 Experiments / Core-size 67 unsat instances from the public IBM benchmarks that took run-till-fix more than 10 sec. Leaves

26 Experiments / Proof-size 67 unsat instances from the public IBM benchmarks that took run-till-fix more than 10 sec. Nodes

27 Summary Linear reductions are less effective that exponential ones...but worth it in the realm of short time outs. Double-pivot reduces proof size by 12% in no time. In use internally in IBM. Left to check: Measure influence on interpolant-based prover. Check combination with other minimization techniques. Try to make efficient for incremental satisfiability.

28 SAT and resolution proofs Resolution is sound and complete for CNF formulas There exists a decision procedure that deduces the empty clause if and only if the input formula is unsatisfiable. Modern SAT solvers are implicit resolution engines Learn new clauses through resolution. Upon request, they produce a resolution proof.

29 2. Recycle pivots / Theory A restriction on general resolution: Regular resolution no pivot is used twice along a path Not Regular 2 is used twice

30 2. Recycle pivots / Theory A restriction on general resolution: Regular resolution no pivot is used twice along a path. Still sound and complete But, computationally weaker. There are formulas in which regular proof >> general proof Because sometimes this forces a tree resolution We make the graph regular as long as it does not require splitting nodes