We establish various complexity results for the entailment problem between formulas in Separation Logic with user-defined predicates denoting recursive data structures. The considered fragments are characterized by syntactic conditions on the inductive rules that define the semantics of the predicates. We focus on so-called P-rules, which are similar to (but simpler than) the PCE rules introduced by Iosif et al. in 2013. In particular, for a specific fragment where predicates are defined by so-called loc-deterministic inductive rules, we devise a sound and complete cyclic proof procedure running in polynomial time. Several complexity lower bounds are provided, showing that any relaxing of the provided conditions makes the problem intractable.

Abstract We propose a superposition-based proof procedure to reason on equational first order formulas defined over graphs. First, we introduce the considered graphs that are directed labeled graphs with lists of roots standing for pins or interfaces for replacements. Then the syntax and semantics of the considered logic are defined. The formulas at hand are clause sets built on equations and disequations on graphs. Afterwards, a sound and complete proof procedure is provided, and redundancy criteria are introduced to dismiss useless clauses and improve the efficiency of the procedure. In a first step, a set of inferences rules is provided in the case of uninterpreted labels. In a second step, the proposed rules are lifted to take into account labels defined as terms interpreted in some arbitrary theory. Particular formulas of interest are Horn clauses, for which stronger redundancy criteria can be devised. Essential differences with the usual term superposition calculus are emphasized.

Abstract The entailment problem $$\upvarphi \models \uppsi $$ φ⊧ψ in Separation Logic [12, 15], between separated conjunctions of equational ( $$x \approx y$$ x≈y and $$x \not \approx y$$ x≉y ), spatial ( $$x \mapsto (y_1,\ldots ,y_\upkappa )$$ x↦(y1,…,yκ) ) and predicate ( $$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)$$ p(x1,…,xn) ) atoms, interpreted by a finite set of inductive rules, is undecidable in general. Certain restrictions on the set of inductive definitions lead to decidable classes of entailment problems. Currently, there are two such decidable classes, based on two restrictions, calledestablishment[10, 13, 14] andrestrictedness[8], respectively. Both classes are shown to be in $$\mathsf {2\text {EXPTIME}}$$ 2EXPTIME by the independent proofs from [14] and [8], respectively, and a many-one reduction of established to restricted entailment problems has been given [8]. In this paper, we strictly generalize the restricted class, by distinguishing the conditions that apply only to the left- ( $$\upvarphi $$ φ ) and the right- ( $$\uppsi $$ ψ ) hand side of entailments, respectively. We provide a many-one reduction of this generalized class, calledsafe, to the established class. Together with the reduction of established to restricted entailment problems, this new reduction closes the loop and shows that the three classes of entailment problems (respectively established, restricted and safe) form a single, unified, $$\mathsf {2\text {EXPTIME}}$$ 2EXPTIME -complete class.

We define a class of Separation Logic formulae, whose entailment problem: given formulae $ϕ, ψ_1, \ldots, ψ_n$, is every model of $ϕ$ a model of some $ψ_i$? is 2EXPTIME-complete. The formulae in this class are existentially quantified separating conjunctions involving predicate atoms, interpreted by the least sets of store-heap structures that satisfy a set of inductive rules, which is also part of the input to the entailment problem. Previous work consider established sets of rules, meaning that every existentially quantified variable in a rule must eventually be bound to an allocated location, i.e. from the domain of the heap. In particular, this guarantees that each structure has treewidth bounded by the size of the largest rule in the set. In contrast, here we show that establishment, although sufficient for decidability (alongside two other natural conditions), is not necessary, by providing a condition, called equational restrictedness, which applies syntactically to (dis-)equalities. The entailment problem is more general in this case, because equationally restricted rules define richer classes of structures, of unbounded treewidth. In this paper we show that (1) every established set of rules can be converted into an equationally restricted one and (2) the entailment problem is 2EXPTIME-complete in the latter case, thus matching the complexity of entailments for established sets of rules.

We introduce a class of rooted graphs which are expressive enough to encode various kinds of classical or quantum circuits. We then follow a set-theoretic approach to define rewrite systems over the considered graphs. Afterwards, we tackle the problem of equational reasoning with the graphs under study and we propose a new Superposition calculus to check the unsatisfiability of formulas consisting of equations or disequations over these graphs. We establish the soundness and refutational completeness of the calculus.

The entailment between separation logic formulæ with inductive predicates, also known as sym- bolic heaps, has been shown to be decidable for a large class of inductive definitions [7]. Recently, a 2-EXPTIME algorithm was proposed [10, 14] and an EXPTIME-hard bound was established in [8]; however no precise lower bound is known. In this paper, we show that deciding entailment between predicate atoms is 2-EXPTIME-hard. The proof is based on a reduction from the membership problem for exponential-space bounded alternating Turing machines [5].

This article investigates the satisfiability problem for Separation Logic with k record fields, with unrestricted nesting of separating conjunctions and implications. It focuses on prenex formulæ with a quantifier prefix in the language ∃*∀* that contain uninterpreted (heap-independent) predicate symbols. In analogy with first-order logic, we call this fragment Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey Separation Logic [BSR(SL k )]. In contrast with existing work on Separation Logic, in which the universe of possible locations is assumed to be infinite, we consider both finite and infinite universes in the present article. We show that, unlike in first-order logic, the (in)finite satisfiability problem is undecidable for BSR(SL k ). Then we define two non-trivial subsets thereof, for which the finite and infinite satisfiability problems are PSPACE-complete, respectively, assuming that the maximum arity of the uninterpreted predicate symbols does not depend on the input. These fragments are defined by controlling the polarity of the occurrences of separating implications, as well as the occurrences of universally quantified variables within their scope. These decidability results have natural applications in program verification, as they allow to automatically prove lemmas that occur in, e.g., entailment checking between inductively defined predicates and validity checking of Hoare triples expressing partial correctness conditions.

Abstract This paper investigates the satisfiability problem for Separation Logic with k record fields, with unrestricted nesting of separating conjunctions and implications, for prenex formulæ with quantifier prefix $$\exists ^*\forall ^*$$ . In analogy with first-order logic, we call this fragment Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey Separation Logic [ $$\mathsf {BSR}(\mathsf {SL}^{\!\scriptstyle {k}})$$ ]. In contrast to existing work in Separation Logic, in which the universe of possible locations is assumed to be infinite, both finite and infinite universes are considered. We show that, unlike in first-order logic, the (in)finite satisfiability problem is undecidable for $$\mathsf {BSR}(\mathsf {SL}^{\!\scriptstyle {k}})$$ . Then we define two non-trivial subsets thereof, that are decidable for finite and infinite satisfiability respectively, by controlling the occurrences of universally quantified variables within the scope of separating implications, as well as the polarity of the occurrences of the latter. Beside the theoretical interest, our work has natural applications in program verification, for checking that constraints on the shape of a data-structure are preserved by a sequence of transformations.

A procedure is proposed to efficiently generate sets of ground implicates of first-order formulas with equality. It is based on a tuning of the superposition calculus, enriched with rules that add new hypotheses on demand during the proof search. Experimental results are presented, showing that the proposed approach is more efficient than state-of-the-art systems.

We present an algorithm for the generation of prime implicates in equational logic, that is, of the most general consequences of formulæ containing equations and disequations between first-order terms. This algorithm is defined by a calculus that is proved to be correct and complete. We then focus on the case where the considered clause set is ground, i.e., contains no variables, and devise a specialized tree data structure that is designed to efficiently detect and delete redundant implicates. The corresponding algorithms are presented along with their termination and correctness proofs. Finally, an experimental evaluation of this prime implicate generation method is conducted in the ground case, including a comparison with state-of-the-art propositional and first-order prime implicate generation tools.

We devise a resolution calculus that tests the satisfiability of infinite families of clause sets, called clause set schemata. For schemata of propositional clause sets, we prove that this calculus is sound, refutationally complete, and terminating. The calculus is extended to first-order clauses, for which termination is lost, since the satisfiability problem is not semi-decidable for nonpropositional schemata. The expressive power of the considered logic is strictly greater than the one considered in our previous work.

This article investigates under which conditions instantiation-based proof procedures can be combined in a nested way, in order to mechanically construct new instantiation procedures for richer theories. Interesting applications in the field of verification are emphasized, particularly for handling extensions of the theory of arrays.

Verification problems require to reason in theories of data structures and fragments of arithmetic. Thus, decision procedures for such theories are needed, to be embedded in, or interfaced with, proof assistants or software model checkers. Such decision procedures ought to be sound and complete, to avoid false negatives and false positives, efficient, to handle large problems, and easy to combine, because most problems involve multiple theories. The rewrite-based approach to decision procedures aims at addressing these sometimes conflicting issues in a uniform way, by harnessing the power of general first-order theorem proving. In this article, we generalize the rewrite-based approach from deciding the satisfiability of sets of ground literals to deciding that of arbitrary ground formulæ in the theory. Next, we present polynomial rewrite-based satisfiability procedures for the theories of records with extensionality and integer offsets. The generalization of the rewrite-based approach to arbitrary ground formulæ and the polynomial satisfiability procedure for the theory of records with extensionality use the same key property—termed variable-inactivity—that allows one to combine theories in a simple way in the rewrite-based approach.