In this demonstration, we present a system that automates regression testing for video games using automated planning techniques. Traditional test scripts are a common method for testing both video games and software in general. While effective, they require manual creation and frequent updates throughout development, making the process labor-intensive. Our system eliminates this burden by automatically generating and maintaining test scripts. The test engineer only needs to define the game’s rules using the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) and specify initial states and goals for individual test cases. This significantly reduces human effort while ensuring test scripts remain up to date. Additionally, our system integrates with game engine editors—supporting both Unity and Unreal to execute and evaluate test cases directly within the game. It collects detailed logs, telemetry data, and video recordings, allowing users to review test results efficiently.

Modern subgraph-finding algorithm implementations consist of thousands of lines of highly optimized code, and this complexity raises questions about their trustworthiness. Recently, some state-of-the-art subgraph solvers have been enhanced to output machine-verifiable proofs that their results are correct. While this significantly improves reliability, it is not a fully satisfactory solution, since end-users have to trust both the proof checking algorithms and the translation of the high-level graph problem into a low-level 0-1 integer linear program (ILP) used for the proofs. In this work, we present the first formally verified toolchain capable of full end-to-end verification for subgraph solving, which closes both of these trust gaps. We have built encoder frontends for various graph problems together with a 0-1 ILP (a.k.a. pseudo-Boolean) proof checker, all implemented and formally verified in the CakeML ecosystem. This toolchain is flexible and extensible, and we use it to build verified proof checkers for both decision and optimization graph problems, namely, subgraph isomorphism, maximum clique, and maximum common (connected) induced subgraph. Our experimental evaluation shows that end-to-end formal verification is now feasible for a wide range of hard graph problems.

Existing planning action domain model acquisition approaches consider different types of state traces from which they learn. The differences in state traces refer to the level of observability of state changes (from full to none) and whether the observations have some noise (the state changes might be inaccurately logged). However, to the best of our knowledge, all the existing approaches consider state traces in which each state change corresponds to an action specified by its name and all its parameters (all objects that are relevant to the action). Furthermore, the names and types of all the parameters of the actions to be learned are given. These assumptions are too strong. In this paper, we propose a method that learns action schema from state traces with fully observable state changes but without the parameters of actions responsible for the state changes (only action names are part of the state traces). Although we can easily deduce the number (and names) of the actions that will be in the learned domain model, we still need to deduce the number and types of the parameters of each action alongside its precondition and effects. We show that this task is at least as hard as graph isomorphism. However, our experimental evaluation on a large collection of IPC benchmarks shows that our approach is still practical as the number of required parameters is usually small. Compared to the state-of-the-art learning tools SAM and Extended SAM our new algorithm can provide better results in terms of learning action models more similar to reference models, even though it uses less information and has fewer restrictions on the input traces.

The dramatic improvements in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving since the turn of the millennium have made it possible to leverage conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) solvers for many combinatorial problems in academia and industry, and the use of proof logging has played a crucial role in increasing the confidence that the results these solvers produce are correct. However, the fact that SAT proof logging is performed in conjunctive normal form (CNF) clausal format means that it has not been possible to extend guarantees of correctness to the use of SAT solvers for more expressive combinatorial paradigms, where the first step is an unverified translation of the input to CNF. In this work, we show how cutting-planes-based reasoning can provide proof logging for solvers that translate pseudo-Boolean (a.k.a. 0-1 integer linear) decision problems to CNF and then run CDCL. We are hopeful that this is just a first step towards providing a unified proof logging approach that will extend to maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solving and pseudo-Boolean optimization in general.

Symmetry and dominance breaking can be crucial for solving hard combinatorial search and optimisation problems, but the correctness of these techniques sometimes relies on subtle arguments. For this reason, it is desirable to produce efficient, machine-verifiable certificates that solutions have been computed correctly. Building on the cutting planes proof system, we develop a certification method for optimisation problems in which symmetry and dominance breaking is easily expressible. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that we can efficiently verify fully general symmetry breaking in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving, thus providing, for the first time, a unified method to certify a range of advanced SAT techniques that also includes cardinality and parity (XOR) reasoning. In addition, we apply our method to maximum clique solving and constraint programming as a proof of concept that the approach applies to a wider range of combinatorial problems.

Symmetry and dominance breaking can be crucial for solving hard combinatorial search and optimisation problems, but the correctness of these techniques sometimes relies on subtle arguments. For this reason, it is desirable to produce efficient, machine-verifiable certificates that solutions have been computed correctly. Building on the cutting planes proof system, we develop a certification method for optimisation problems in which symmetry and dominance breaking are easily expressible. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that we can efficiently verify fully general symmetry breaking in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving, thus providing, for the first time, a unified method to certify a range of advanced SAT techniques that also includes XOR and cardinality reasoning. In addition, we apply our method to maximum clique solving and constraint programming as a proof of concept that the approach applies to a wider range of combinatorial problems.

We describe the design and implementation of a new constraint programming solver that can produce an auditable record of what problem was solved and how the solution was reached. As well as a solution, this solver provides an independently verifiable proof log demonstrating that the solution is correct. This proof log uses the VeriPB proof system, which is based upon cutting planes reasoning with extension variables. We explain how this system can support global constraints, variables with large domains, and reformulation, despite not natively understanding any of these concepts.

The dramatic improvements in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving since the turn of the millennium have made it possible to leverage state-of-the-art conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) solvers for many combinatorial problems in academia and industry, and the use of proof logging has played a crucial role in increasing the confidence that the results these solvers produce are correct. However, the fact that SAT proof logging is performed in conjunctive normal form (CNF) clausal format means that it has not been possible to extend guarantees of correctness to the use of SAT solvers for more expressive combinatorial paradigms, where the first step is an unverified translation of the input to CNF. In this work, we show how cutting-planes-based reasoning can provide proof logging for solvers that translate pseudo-Boolean (a.k.a. 0-1 integer linear) decision problems to CNF and then run CDCL. To support a wide range of encodings, we provide a uniform and easily extensible framework for proof logging of CNF translations. We are hopeful that this is just a first step towards providing a unified proof logging approach that will also extend to maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solving and pseudo-Boolean optimization in general.

Core-guided techniques have revolutionized Boolean satisfiability approaches to optimization problems (MaxSAT), but the process at the heart of these methods, strengthening bounds on solutions by repeatedly adding cardinality constraints, remains a bottleneck. Cardinality constraints require significant work to be re-encoded to SAT, and SAT solvers are notoriously weak at cardinality reasoning. In this work, we lift core-guided search to pseudo-Boolean (PB) solvers, which deal with more general PB optimization problems and operate natively with cardinality constraints. The cutting planes method used in such solvers allows us to derive stronger cardinality constraints, which yield better updates to solution bounds, and the increased efficiency of objective function reformulation also makes it feasible to switch repeatedly between lower-bounding and upper- bounding search. A thorough evaluation on applied and crafted benchmarks shows that our core-guided PB solver significantly improves on the state of the art in pseudo-Boolean optimization.

The dramatic improvements in combinatorial optimization algorithms over the last decades have had a major impact in artificial intelligence, operations research, and beyond, but the output of current state-of-the-art solvers is often hard to verify and is sometimes wrong. For Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers proof logging has been introduced as a way to certify correctness, but the methods used seem hard to generalize to stronger paradigms. What is more, even for enhanced SAT techniques such as parity (XOR) reasoning, cardinality detection, and symmetry handling, it has remained beyond reach to design practically efficient proofs in the standard DRAT format. In this work, we show how to instead use pseudo-Boolean inequalities with extension variables to concisely justify XOR reasoning. Our experimental evaluation of a SAT solver integration shows a dramatic decrease in proof logging and verification time compared to existing DRAT methods. Since our method is a strict generalization of DRAT, and readily lends itself to expressing also 0-1 programming and even constraint programming problems, we hope this work points the way towards a unified approach for efficient machine-verifiable proofs for a rich class of combinatorial optimization paradigms.

Constraint programming solvers support rich global constraints and propagators, which make them both powerful and hard to debug. In the Boolean satisfiability community, proof-logging is the standard solution for generating trustworthy outputs, and this has become key to the social acceptability of computer-generated proofs. However, reusing this technology for constraint programming requires either much weaker propagation, or an impractical blowup in proof length. This paper demonstrates that simple, clean, and efficient proof logging is still possible for the all-different constraint, through pseudo-Boolean reasoning. We explain how such proofs can be expressed and verified mechanistically, describe an implementation, and discuss the broader implications for proof logging in constraint programming.

Given a Boolean formula, the problem of counting seeks to estimate the number of solutions of F while the problem of uniform sampling seeks to sample solutions uniformly at random. Counting and uniform sampling are fundamental problems in computer science with a wide range of applications ranging from constrained random simulation, probabilistic inference to network reliability and beyond. The past few years have witnessed the rise of hashing-based approaches that use XOR-based hashing and employ SAT solvers to solve the resulting CNF formulas conjuncted with XOR constraints. Since over 99% of the runtime of hashing-based techniques is spent inside the SAT queries, improving CNF-XOR solvers has emerged as a key challenge. In this paper, we identify the key performance bottlenecks in the recently proposed $$\mathsf {BIRD}$$ architecture, and we focus on overcoming these bottlenecks by accelerating the XOR handling within the SAT solver and on improving the solver integration through a smarter use of (partial) solutions. We integrate the resulting system, called $$\mathsf {BIRD2}$$ , with the state of the art approximate model counter, $$\mathsf {ApproxMC3}$$ , and the state of the art almost-uniform model sampler $$\mathsf {UniGen2}$$ . Through an extensive evaluation over a large benchmark set of over 1896 instances, we observe that $$\mathsf {BIRD2}$$ leads to consistent speed up for both counting and sampling, and in particular, we solve 77 and 51 more instances for counting and sampling respectively.

Modern subgraph isomorphism solvers carry out sophisticated reasoning using graph invariants such as degree sequences and path counts. We show that all of this reasoning can be justified compactly using the cutting planes proofs studied in complexity theory. This allows us to extend a state of the art subgraph isomorphism enumeration solver with proof logging support, so that the solutions it outputs may be audited and verified for correctness and completeness by a simple third party tool which knows nothing about graph theory.

The conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) paradigm has revolutionized SAT solving over the last two decades. Extending this approach to pseudo-Boolean (PB) solvers doing 0-1 linear programming holds the promise of further exponential improvements in theory, but intriguingly such gains have not materialized in practice. Also intriguingly, most PB extensions of CDCL use not the division rule in cutting planes as defined in [Cook et al., '87] but instead the so-called saturation rule. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study comparing the strengths of division and saturation in the context of conflict-driven PB learning, when all linear combinations of inequalities are required to cancel variables. We show that PB solvers with division instead of saturation can be exponentially stronger. In the other direction, we prove that simulating a single saturation step can require an exponential number of divisions. We also perform some experiments to see whether these phenomena can be observed in actual solvers. Our conclusion is that a careful combination of division and saturation seems to be crucial to harness more of the power of cutting planes.

Over the last decades Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers based on conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) have developed to the point where they can handle formulas with millions of variables. Yet a deeper understanding of how these solvers can be so successful has remained elusive. In this work we shed light on CDCL performance by using theoretical benchmarks, which have the attractive features of being a) scalable, b) extremal with respect to different proof search parameters, and c) theoretically easy in the sense of having short proofs in the resolution proof system underlying CDCL. This allows for a systematic study of solver heuristics and how efficiently they search for proofs. We report results from extensive experiments on a wide range of benchmarks. Our findings include several examples where theory predicts and explains CDCL behaviour, but also raise a number of intriguing questions for further study.