Abstract Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their lack of formal correctness guarantees limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and healthcare that operate under strict policies. To address this limitation, we launched Automated Reasoning checks (ARc) : a public service that (1) uses LLMs with optional human guidance to formalize natural language policies, allowing fine-grained control of the formalization process, and (2) uses inference-time autoformalization to validate logical correctness of natural language statements against those policies. ARc performs multiple redundant formalization steps at inference time, checking the formalizations for semantic equivalence. Our benchmarks show that ARc exceeds 99% soundness and achieves a near-zero false positive rate in identifying logical validity. Our approach produces auditable artifacts that substantiate the verification outcomes and can be used to improve the original text. ARc is the first commercial offering from a major cloud provider to integrate automated reasoning into a generative AI guardrail.

Abstract Distributed clause-sharing SAT solvers can solve challenging problems hundreds of times faster than sequential SAT solvers by sharing derived information among multiple sequential solvers. Unlike sequential solvers, however, distributed solvers have not been able to produce proofs of unsatisfiability in a scalable manner, which limits their use in critical applications. In this work, we present a method to produce unsatisfiability proofs for distributed SAT solvers by combining the partial proofs produced by each sequential solver into a single, linear proof. We first describe a simple sequential algorithm and then present a fully distributed algorithm for proof composition, which is substantially more scalable and general than prior works. Our empirical evaluation with over 1500 solver threads shows that our distributed approach allows proof composition and checking within around 3 $$\times $$ × its own (highly competitive) solving time.

Abstract String solvers are automated-reasoning tools that can solve combinatorial problems over formal languages. They typically operate on restricted first-order logic formulas that include operations such as string concatenation, substring relationship, and regular expression matching. String solving thus amounts to deciding the satisfiability of such formulas. While there exists a variety of different string solvers, many string problems cannot be solved efficiently by any of them. We present a new approach to string solving that encodes input problems into propositional logic and leverages incremental SAT solving. We evaluate our approach on a broad set of benchmarks. On the logical fragment that our tool supports, it is competitive with state-of-the-art solvers. Our experiments also demonstrate that an eager SAT-based approach complements existing approaches to string solving in this specific fragment.

Abstract Distributed clause-sharing SAT solvers can solve problems up to one hundred times faster than sequential SAT solvers by sharing derived information among multiple sequential solvers working on the same problem. Unlike sequential solvers, however, distributed solvers have not been able to produce proofs of unsatisfiability in a scalable manner, which has limited their use in critical applications. In this paper, we present a method to produce unsatisfiability proofs for distributed SAT solvers by combining the partial proofs produced by each sequential solver into a single, linear proof. Our approach is more scalable and general than previous explorations for parallel clause-sharing solvers, allowing use on distributed solvers without shared memory. We propose a simple sequential algorithm as well as a fully distributed algorithm for proof composition. Our empirical evaluation shows that for large-scale distributed solvers (100 nodes of 16 cores each), our distributed approach allows reliable proof composition and checking with reasonable overhead. We analyze the overhead and discuss how and where future efforts may further improve performance.

Abstract Modern SAT solvers produce proofs of unsatisfiability to justify the correctness of their results. These proofs, which are usually represented in the well-known DRAT format, can often become huge, requiring multiple gigabytes of disk storage. We present a technique for semantic proof compression that selects a subset of important clauses from a proof and stores them as a so-called proof skeleton. This proof skeleton can later be used to efficiently reconstruct a full proof by exploiting parallelism. We implemented our approach on top of the award-winning SAT solver CaDiCaL and the proof checker DRAT-trim. In an experimental evaluation, we demonstrate that we can compress proofs into skeletons that are 100 to 5, 000 times smaller than the original proofs. For almost all problems, proof reconstruction using a skeleton improves the solving time on a single core, and is around five times faster when using 24 cores.

We investigate whether modern messaging apps achieve the strong post-compromise security guarantees offered by their underlying protocols. In particular, we perform a black-box experiment in which a user becomes the victim of a clone attack; in this attack, the user's full state (including identity keys) is compromised by an attacker who clones their device and then later attempts to impersonate them, using the app through its user interface.

We introduce proof systems for propositional logic that admit short proofs of hard formulas as well as the succinct expression of most techniques used by modern SAT solvers. Our proof systems allow the derivation of clauses that are not necessarily implied, but which are redundant in the sense that their addition preserves satisfiability. To guarantee that these added clauses are redundant, we consider various efficiently decidable redundancy criteria which we obtain by first characterizing clause redundancy in terms of a semantic implication relationship and then restricting this relationship so that it becomes decidable in polynomial time. As the restricted implication relation is based on unit propagation-a core technique of SAT solvers-it allows efficient proof checking too. The resulting proof systems are surprisingly strong, even without the introduction of new variables-a key feature of short proofs presented in the proof-complexity literature. We demonstrate the strength of our proof systems on the famous pigeon hole formulas by providing short clausal proofs without new variables.

Abstract Proof systems for propositional logic provide the basis for decision procedures that determine the satisfiability status of logical formulas. While the well-known proof system of extended resolution—introduced by Tseitin in the sixties—allows for the compact representation of proofs, modern SAT solvers (i.e., tools for deciding propositional logic) are based on different proof systems that capture practical solving techniques in an elegant way. The most popular of these proof systems is likely DRAT, which is considered the de-facto standard in SAT solving. Moreover, just recently, the proof system DPR has been proposed as a generalization of DRAT that allows for short proofs without the need of new variables. Since every extended-resolution proof can be regarded as a DRAT proof and since every DRAT proof is also a DPR proof, it was clear that both DRAT and DPR generalize extended resolution. In this paper, we show that—from the viewpoint of proof complexity—these two systems are no stronger than extended resolution. We do so by showing that (1) extended resolution polynomially simulates DRAT and (2) DRAT polynomially simulates DPR. We implemented our simulations as proof-transformation tools and evaluated them to observe their behavior in practice. Finally, as a side note, we show how Kullmann’s proof system based on blocked clauses (another generalization of extended resolution) is related to the other systems.

Satisfaction-Driven Clause Learning (SDCL) is a recent SAT solving paradigm that aggressively trims the search space of possible truth assignments. To determine if the SAT solver is currently exploring a dispensable part of the search space, SDCL uses the so-called positive reduct of a formula: The positive reduct is an easily solvable propositional formula that is satisfiable if the current assignment of the solver can be safely pruned from the search space. In this paper, we present two novel variants of the positive reduct that allow for even more aggressive pruning. Using one of these variants allows SDCL to solve harder problems, in particular the well-known Tseitin formulas and mutilated chessboard problems. For the first time, we are able to generate and automatically check clausal proofs for large instances of these problems.

Clause-elimination techniques that simplify formulas by removing redundant clauses play an important role in modern SAT solving. Among the types of redundant clauses, blocked clauses are particularly popular. For checking whether a clause C is blocked in a formula F, one only needs to consider the so-called resolution neighborhood of C, i.e., the set of clauses that can be resolved with C. Because of this, blocked clauses are referred to as being locally redundant. In this paper, we discuss powerful generalizations of blocked clauses that are still locally redundant, viz. set-blocked clauses and super-blocked clauses. We furthermore present complexity results for deciding whether a clause is set-blocked or super-blocked.

Blocked clauses provide the basis for powerful reasoning techniques used in SAT, QBF, and DQBF solving. Their definition, which relies on a simple syntactic criterion, guarantees that they are both redundant and easy to find. In this paper, we lift the notion of blocked clauses to first-order logic. We introduce two types of blocked clauses, one for first-order logic with equality and the other for first-order logic without equality, and prove their redundancy. In addition, we give a polynomial algorithm for checking whether a clause is blocked. Based on our new notions of blocking, we implemented a novel first-order preprocessing tool. Our experiments showed that many first-order problems in the TPTP library contain a large number of blocked clauses whose elimination can improve the performance of modern theorem provers, especially on satisfiable problem instances.