Hard industrial planning, timetabling or scheduling instances for SAT typically have many high-level constraints, each expressed by a possibly large number of clauses. When a given instance is reported unsatisfiable by the SAT solver, the user normally needs an explanation why: a (hopefully small) subset of the constraints causing it. Our industrial applications require fast explanations, preferably faster than the original SAT run. For this, we leverage the original solver’s work through its unsatisfiability proof. Here we introduce WhyUnsat, and explain why it is fast and robust. In WhyUnsat one can always plug in the best current SAT solver and proof trimmer, without any modification, by simply indicating the path to their executables. WhyUnsat is also fast because it exploits, via MPI, the -progressively cheaper- shared-memory and distributed computing resources. Another requirement we had is that the tool should be anytime and user-friendly; indeed, it quickly shows a human-readable presentation of (an over-approximation of) the explanation, which is then progressively reduced until minimality (unless interrupted by the user). Finally, and not less importantly, here we explain how and why the WhyUnsat approach is now also directly applicable, at no implementation cost, to IPASIR-UP-based constraint programming by Lazy Clause Generation (LCG) as well as to SAT Modulo Theories (SMT).

Among all procedures that CDCL-based SAT solvers implement, unit propagation dominates the total running time. Hence, it is not a surprise that large research efforts have been invested on improving it. As a result, the two-watched-literal scheme, enhanced with implementation details boosting its performance, emerged as the dominant method. The importance of unit propagation in pseudo-Boolean solvers is similar. However, no dominant method exists: counter and watch-based propagation are well-suited for different types of constraints, opening the door to hybrid methods. The higher complexity of implementing pseudo-Boolean solvers has shifted the research focus to higher-level aspects of other procedures, considering implementation details of unit propagation not a priority. In this paper, we first present execution logs: a novel methodology that allows us to precisely evaluate the performance of different propagation procedures. Secondly, we show how both counter and watch-based propagation routines in the RoundingSat solver can be largely improved thanks to a careful analysis of various implementation issues. Thirdly, a detailed analysis shows that hybrid methods outperform the ones based on a single technique. Finally, our experiments reveal that improvements in propagation lead to a clearly better overall performance of the solver.

Unit propagation and conflict analysis are two essential ingredients of CDCL SAT Solving. The order in which unit propagation is computed does not matter when no conflict is found, because it is well known that there exists a unique unit-propagation fixpoint. However, when a conflict is found, current CDCL implementations stop and analyze that concrete conflict, even though other conflicts may exist in the unit-propagation closure. In this experimental evaluation, we report on our experience in modifying this concrete aspect in the CaDiCaL SAT Solver and try to answer the question of whether we can improve the performance of SAT Solvers by the analysis of multiple conflicts.

We shed new light on the Literal Block Distance (LBD) and glue-based heuristics used in current SAT solvers. For this, we first introduce the concept of stickiness: given a run of a CDCL SAT solver, for each pair of literals we define, by a real value between 0 and 1, how sticky they are, basically, how frequently they are set at the same decision level. By means of a careful and detailed experimental setup and analysis, we confirm the following quite surprising fact: given a SAT instance, when running different CDCL SAT solvers on it, no matter their settings or random seeds, the stickiness relation between literals is always very similar, in a precisely defined sense. We analyze how quickly stickiness stabilizes in a run (quite quickly), and show that it is stable even under different encodings of cardinality constraints. We then describe how and why these solid new insights lead to heuristics refinements for SAT (and extensions, such as SMT) and improved information sharing in parallel solvers.

We present new methods for solving the Satisfiability Modulo Theories problem over the theory of Quantifier-Free Non-linear Integer Arithmetic, SMT(QF-NIA), which consists of deciding the satisfiability of ground formulas with integer polynomial constraints. Following previous work, we propose to solve SMT(QF-NIA) instances by reducing them to linear arithmetic: non-linear monomials are linearized by abstracting them with fresh variables and by performing case splitting on integer variables with finite domain. For variables that do not have a finite domain, we can artificially introduce one by imposing a lower and an upper bound and iteratively enlarge it until a solution is found (or the procedure times out). The key for the success of the approach is to determine, at each iteration, which domains have to be enlarged. Previously, unsatisfiable cores were used to identify the domains to be changed, but no clue was obtained as to how large the new domains should be. Here, we explain two novel ways to guide this process by analyzing solutions to optimization problems: (i) to minimize the number of violated artificial domain bounds, solved via a Max-SMT solver, and (ii) to minimize the distance with respect to the artificial domains, solved via an Optimization Modulo Theories (OMT) solver. Using this SMT-based optimization technology allows smoothly extending the method to also solve Max-SMT problems over non-linear integer arithmetic. Finally, we leverage the resulting Max-SMT(QF-NIA) techniques to solve ∃ ∀ formulas in a fragment of quantified non-linear arithmetic that appears commonly in verification and synthesis applications.

We present an automated compositional program verification technique for safety properties based on conditional inductive invariants. For a given program part (e.g., a single loop) and a postcondition ϕ, we show how to, using a Max-SMT solver, an inductive invariant together with a precondition can be synthesized so that the precondition ensures the validity of the invariant and that the invariant implies ϕ. From this, we build a bottom-up program verification framework that propagates preconditions of small program parts as postconditions for preceding program parts. The method recovers from failures to prove the validity of a precondition, using the obtained intermediate results to restrict the search space for further proof attempts. As only small program parts need to be handled at a time, our method is scalable and distributable. The derived conditions can be viewed as implicit contracts between different parts of the program, and thus enable an incremental program analysis.

In most termination tools two ingredients, namely recursive path orderings (RPOs) and polynomial interpretation orderings (POLOs), are used in a consecutive disjoint way to solve the final constraints generated from the termination problem. In this article we present a simple ordering that combines both RPO and POLO and defines a family of orderings that includes both, and extend them with the possibility of having, at the same time, an RPO-like treatment for some symbols and a POLO-like treatment for the others. The ordering is extended to higher-order terms, providing a new fully automatable use of polynomial interpretations in combination with beta-reduction.

Pseudo-Boolean constraints are omnipresent in practical applications, and thus a significant effort has been devoted to the development of good SAT encoding techniques for them. Some of these encodings first construct a Binary Decision Diagram (BDD) for the constraint, and then encode the BDD into a propositional formula. These BDD-based approaches have some important advantages, such as not being dependent on the size of the coefficients, or being able to share the same BDD for representing many constraints. We first focus on the size of the resulting BDDs, which was considered to be an open problem in our research community. We report on previous work where it was proved that there are Pseudo-Boolean constraints for which no polynomial BDD exists. We also give an alternative and simpler proof assuming that NP is different from Co-NP. More interestingly, here we also show how to overcome the possible exponential blowup of BDDs by \emph{coefficient decomposition}. This allows us to give the first polynomial generalized arc-consistent ROBDD-based encoding for Pseudo-Boolean constraints. Finally, we focus on practical issues: we show how to efficiently construct such ROBDDs, how to encode them into SAT with only 2 clauses per node, and present experimental results that confirm that our approach is competitive with other encodings and state-of-the-art Pseudo-Boolean solvers.

The extensional theory of arrays is one of the most important ones for applications of SAT modulo theories (SMT) to hardware and software verification. Here we present a new T-solver for arrays in the context of the DPLL(T) approach to SMT. The main characteristics of our solver are: (i) no translation of writes into reads is needed, (ii) there is no axiom instantiation, and (iii) the T-solver interacts with the Boolean engine by asking to split on equality literals between indices. Unlike most state-of-the-art array solvers, it is not based on a lazy instantiation of the array axioms. This novelty might make it more convenient to apply this solver in some particular environments. Moreover, it is very competitive in practice, specially on problems that require heavy reasoning on array literals.

This paper presents the algebraic foundation for an approach for generating polynomial loop invariants in imperative programs. It is first shown that the set of polynomials serving as loop invariants has the algebraic structure of an ideal. Using this connection, a procedure for finding loop invariants is given in terms of operations on ideals, for which Grobner basis constructions can be employed. Most importantly, it is proved that if the assignment statements in a loop are solvable (in particular, affine) mappings with positive eigenvalues, then the procedure terminates in at most 2m+1 iterations, where m is the number of variables in the loop. The proof is done by showing that the irreducible subvarieties of the variety associated with the polynomial ideal approximating the invariant polynomial ideal of the loop either stay the same or increase their dimension in every iteration. This yields a correct and complete algorithm for inferring conjunctions of polynomial equations as invariants. The method has been implemented in Maple using the Groebner package. The implementation has been used to automatically discover nontrivial invariants for several examples to illustrate the power of the techniques.