We focus in this paper on generating models of quantified first-order formulas over built-in theories, which is paramount in software verification and bug finding. While standard methods are either geared toward proving the absence of solution or targeted to specific theories, we propose a generic approach based on a reduction to the quantifier-free case. Our technique allows thus to reuse all the efficient machinery developed for that context. Experiments show a substantial improvement over state-of-the-art methods.
Broadly speaking, these methods iteratively instantiate axioms until a contradiction is found. They are generic w.r.t. the underlying theory and allow to reuse standard theory solvers, but termination is not guaranteed. Also, they are more suited to prove unsatisfiability than to find models. In this family, E-matching @cite_13 @cite_27 shows reasonable cost when combined with conflict-based instantiation @cite_28 or semantic triggers @cite_8 @cite_30 . In pure first-order logic (without theories), quantifiers are mainly handled through resolution and superposition @cite_31 @cite_29 as done in Vampire @cite_18 @cite_11 and E @cite_6 .
@cite_30 @cite_18 @cite_8 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_6 @cite_27 @cite_31 @cite_13 @cite_11
176609766 1515930456 2084417024 2157039289
Horn clause logic programming can be extended to include abduction with integrity constraints. In the resulting extension of logic programming, negation by failure can be simulated by making negative conditions abducible and by imposing appropriate denials and disjunctions as integrity constraints. This gives an alternative semantics for negation by failure, which generalises the stable model semantics of negation by failure. The abductive extension of logic programming extends negation by failure in three ways: (1) computation can be perfonned in alternative minimal models, (2) positive as well as negative conditions can be made abducible, and (3) other integrity constraints can also be accommodated. * This paper was written while the first author was at Imperial College. 235 Introduction The tenn "abduction" was introduced by the philosopher Charles Peirce [1931] to refer to a particular kind of hypothetical reasoning. In the simplest case, it has the fonn: From A and A fB infer B as a possible "explanation" of A. Abduction has been given prominence in Charniak and McDennot's [1985] "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence", where it has been applied to expert systems and story comprehension. Independently, several authors have developed deductive techniques to drive the generation of abductive hypotheses. Cox and Pietrzykowski [1986] construct hypotheses from the "dead ends" of linear resolution proofs. Finger and Genesereth [1985] generate "deductive solutions to design problems" using the "residue" left behind in resolution proofs. Poole, Goebel and Aleliunas [1987] also use linear resolution to generate hypotheses. All impose the restriction that hypotheses should be consistent with the "knowledge base". Abduction is a fonn of non-monotonic reasoning, because hypotheses which are consistent with one state of a knowledge base may become inconSistent when new knowledge is added. Poole [1988] argues that abduction is preferable to noh-monotonic logics for default reasoning. In this view, defaults are hypotheses fonnulated within classical logic rather than conclusions derived withln some fonn of non-monotonic logic. The similarity between abduction and default reasoning was also pointed out in [Kowalski, 1979]. In this paper we show how abduction can be integrated with logic programming, and we concentrate on the use of abduction to generalise negation by failure. Conditional Answers Compared with Abduction In the simplest case, a logic program consists of a set of Horn Clauses, which are used backward to_reduce goals to sub goals. The initial goal is solved when there are no subgollls left; The problem of deciding the satisfiability of a quantifier-free formula with respect to a background theory, also known as Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), is gaining increasing relevance in verification: representation capabilities beyond propositional logic allow for a natural modeling of real-world problems (e.g., pipeline and RTL circuits verification, proof obligations in software systems). In this paper, we focus on the case where the background theory is the combination T1∪T2 of two simpler theories. Many SMT procedures combine a boolean model enumeration with a decision procedure for T1∪T2, where conjunctions of literals can be decided by an integration schema such as Nelson-Oppen, via a structured exchange of interface formulae (e.g., equalities in the case of convex theories, disjunctions of equalities otherwise). We propose a new approach for SMT(T1∪T2), called Delayed Theory Combination, which does not require a decision procedure for T1∪T2, but only individual decision procedures for T1 and T2, which are directly integrated into the boolean model enumerator. This approach is much simpler and natural, allows each of the solvers to be implemented and optimized without taking into account the others, and it nicely encompasses the case of non-convex theories. We show the effectiveness of the approach by a thorough experimental comparison. Program analysis and verification require decision procedures to reason on theories of data structures. Many problems can be reduced to the satisfiability of sets of ground literals in theory T. If a sound and complete inference system for first-order logic is guaranteed to terminate on T-satisfiability problems, any theorem-proving strategy with that system and a fair search plan is a T-satisfiability procedure. We prove termination of a rewrite-based first-order engine on the theories of records, integer offsets, integer offsets modulo and lists. We give a modularity theorem stating sufficient conditions for termination on a combination of theories, given termination on each. The above theories, as well as others, satisfy these conditions. We introduce several sets of benchmarks on these theories and their combinations, including both parametric synthetic benchmarks to test scalability, and real-world problems to test performances on huge sets of literals. We compare the rewrite-based theorem prover E with the validity checkers CVC and CVC Lite. Contrary to the folklore that a general-purpose prover cannot compete with reasoners with built-in theories, the experiments are overall favorable to the theorem prover, showing that not only the rewriting approach is elegant and conceptually simple, but has important practical implications. SMT solvers can decide the satisability are not handled in a complete way by SMT solvers, these axiomatics cannot be used as decision procedures. In this paper, we show how to extend a generic SMT solver to accept a custom theory description and behave as a decision procedure for that theory, provided that the described theory is complete and terminating in a precise sense. The description language consists of rst-order axioms with triggers, an instantiation mechanism that is found in many SMT solvers. This mechanism, which usually lacks a clear semantics in existing languages and tools, is rigorously dened here; this denition can be used to prove completeness and termination of the theory. We demonstrate using the theory of arrays, how such proofs can be achieved in our formalism.