Symmetry breaking is a crucial technique in modern combinatorial solving, but it is difficult to be sure it is implemented correctly. The most successful approach to deal with bugs is to make solvers certifying, so that they output not just a solution, but also a mathematical proof of correctness in a standard format, which can then be checked by a formally verified checker. This requires justifying symmetry reasoning within the proof, but developing efficient methods for this has remained a long-standing open challenge. A fully general approach was recently proposed, but it relies on encoding lexicographic orders with big integers, which quickly becomes infeasible for large symmetries. In this work, we develop a method for instead encoding orders with auxiliary variables. We show that this leads to orders-of-magnitude speed-ups in both theory and practice by running experiments on proof logging and checking for SAT symmetry breaking using the state-of-the-art satsuma symmetry breaker and the VeriPB proof checking toolchain.

Applied combinatorial optimization has witnessed a revolution in performance since the turn of the millennium, but the complexity of modern solvers is making bugs an ever more serious concern. The most promising remedy is to make solvers certifying, so that they use proof logging to generate machine-verifiable proofs of correctness. We present the first example of state-of-the-art certified graph colouring by equipping the solver ZykovColor with VeriPB proof logging. Combined with the formally verified CakePB checker, this provides end-to-end formally certified results. An experimental evaluation shows excellent results with only moderate overhead for proof logging and checking.

When a certifying solver claims that a solution is optimal or that a problem is unsatisfiable, it demonstrates this convincingly by giving a proof log which can be checked by an independent (and ideally formally verified) proof checker. Such an approach should also be viable for enumeration problems ("I have listed all solutions explicitly") and counting problems ("there are exactly 42 solutions"), but the currently most popular proof logging systems contain several vital features which are incompatible with this goal. We explain how the VeriPB system can be modified for enumeration and counting proofs whilst retaining as much as possible of its powerful "strengthening" and "deletion" features. We implement this extension both inside VeriPB’s user-friendly proof checker and elaborator and the formally verified CakePB backend, and use this to obtain formally verified enumerations of solutions for a range of constraint solving and graph problem instances.

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.

Proof logging has long been the established method to certify correctness of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers, but has only recently been introduced for SAT-based optimization (MaxSAT). The focus of this paper is solution-improving search (SIS), in which a SAT solver is iteratively queried for increasingly better solutions until an optimal one is found. A challenging aspect of modern SIS solvers is that they make use of complex "without loss of generality" arguments that are quite involved to understand even at a human meta-level, let alone to express in a simple, machine-verifiable proof. In this work, we develop pseudo-Boolean proof logging methods for solution-improving MaxSAT solving, and use them to produce a certifying version of the state-of-the-art solver Pacose with VeriPB proofs. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that this approach works in practice. We hope that this is yet another step towards general adoption of proof logging in MaxSAT solving.

Pseudo-Boolean proof logging has been used successfully to provide certificates of optimality from a variety of constraint- and satisifability-style solvers that combine reasoning with a backtracking or clause-learning search. Another paradigm, occurring in dynamic programming and decision diagram solving, instead reasons about partial states and possible transitions between them. We describe a framework for generating clean and efficient pseudo-Boolean proofs for these kinds of algorithm, and use it to produce certifying algorithms for knapsack, longest path, and interval scheduling. Because we use a common proof system, we can also reason about hybrid solving algorithms: we demonstrate this by providing proof logging for a dynamic programming based knapsack propagator inside a constraint programming solver.

Abstract Building on the progress in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving over the last decades, maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) has become a viable approach for solving -hard optimization problems. However, ensuring correctness of MaxSAT solvers has remained a considerable concern. For SAT, this is largely a solved problem thanks to the use of proof logging, meaning that solvers emit machine-verifiable proofs to certify correctness. However, for MaxSAT, proof logging solvers have started being developed only very recently. Moreover, these nascent efforts have only targeted the core solving process, ignoring the preprocessing phase where input problem instances can be substantially reformulated before being passed on to the solver proper. In this work, we demonstrate how pseudo-Boolean proof logging can be used to certify the correctness of a wide range of modern MaxSAT preprocessing techniques. By combining and extending the VeriPB and CakePB tools, we provide formally verified end-to-end proof checking that the input and preprocessed output MaxSAT problem instances have the same optimal value. An extensive evaluation on applied MaxSAT benchmarks shows that our approach is feasible in practice.

Abstract In the last couple of decades, developments in SAT-based optimization have led to highly efficient maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solvers, but in contrast to the SAT solvers on which MaxSAT solving rests, there has been little parallel development of techniques to prove the correctness of MaxSAT results. We show how pseudo-Boolean proof logging can be used to certify state-of-the-art core-guided MaxSAT solving, including advanced techniques like structure sharing, weight-aware core extraction and hardening. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that this approach is viable in practice. We are hopeful that this is the first step towards general proof logging techniques for MaxSAT solvers.

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.

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.

We consider a version of the Erdős-Rothschild problem for families of graph patterns. For any fixed k ≥ 3, let r0(k) be the largest integer such that the following holds for all 2 ≤ r ≤ r0(k) and all sufficiently large n: The Turán graph Tk-1(n) is the unique n-vertex graph G with the maximum number of r-edge-colorings such that the edge set of any copy of Kk in G is rainbow. We use the regularity lemma of Szemerédi and linear programming to obtain a lower bound on the value of r0(k). For a more general family P of patterns of Kk, we also prove that, in order to show that the Turán graph Tk-1(n) maximizes the number of P-free r-edge-colorings over n-vertex graphs, it suffices to prove a related stability result.