Solving SMT Problems with a Costly Decision Procedure by Finding Minimum Satisfying Assignments of Boolean Formulas

Lexicographic Boolean satisfiability (LEXSAT) is a variation of the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT). Given a variable order, LEXSAT finds a satisfying assignment whose integer value under the given variable order is minimum (maximum) among all satisfiable assignments. If the formula has no satisfying assignments, LEXSAT proves it unsatisfiable, as does the traditional SAT. The paper proposes an efficient algorithm for LEXSAT by combining incremental SAT solving with binary search. It also proposes methods that use the lexicographic properties of the assignments to further improve the runtime when generating consecutive satisfying assignments in lexicographic order. The proposed algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art LEXSAT algorithm—on average, it is 2.4 times faster when generating a single LEXSAT assignment, and it is 6.3 times faster when generating multiple consecutive assignments.

Propositional Satisfiability (SAT) is a keystone in the history of computer science. SAT was the first problem shown to be NP-complete in 1971 by Stephen Cook. Having passed more than 40 years from then, SAT is now a lively research field where theory and practice have a natural intermixing. In this talk, we overview the use of SAT in practical domains, where SAT is thought in a broad sense, i.e. including SAT extensions such as Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT), Pseudo-Boolean Optimization (PBO) and Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF).

Linear pseudoBoolean optimization (PBO) has found applications in several areas, ranging from artificial intelligence to electronic design automation. Due to important advances in Boolean satisfiability (SAT), new algorithms for PBO have emerged, which are effective on highly constrained instances. However, those algorithms fail in dealing properly with the objective function of PBO. We propose an algorithm that uses lower bound estimation methods for pruning the search tree in integration with techniques from SAT algorithms. Moreover, we show that the utilization of lower bound estimates can dramatically improve the overall performance of PBO solvers for specific classes of instances. In addition, we describe how to apply nonchronological backtracking in the presence of conflicts that result from the bounding process, using different lower bound estimation methods.

Measurement errors make power analysis attacks difficult to mount when only a single power trace is available: the statistical methods that make DPA attacks so successful are not applicable since they require many (typically thousands) of traces. Recently it was suggested by [18] to use algebraic methods for the single-trace scenario, converting the key recovery problem into a Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem, then using a SAT solver. However, this approach is extremely sensitive to noise (allowing an error rate of well under 1% at most), and the question of its practicality remained open. In this work we show how a single-trace side-channel analysis problem can be transformed into a pseudo-Boolean optimization (PBOPT) problem, which takes errors into consideration. The PBOPT instance can then be solved using a suitable optimization problem solver. The PBOPT syntax provides for a more expressive input specification which allows a very natural representation of measurement errors. Most importantly, we show that using our approach we are able to mount successful and efficient single-trace attacks even in the presence of realistic error rates of 10%-20%. We call our new attack methodology Tolerant Algebraic Side-Channel Analysis (TASCA). We show practical attacks on two real ciphers: Keeloq and AES.

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.

Predicate abstraction is an important technique for extracting compact finite state models from large or infinite state systems. Predicate abstraction uses decision procedures to compute a model which is amenable to model checking, and has been used successfully for software verification. Little work however has been done on applying predicate abstraction to large scale finite state systems, most notably, hardware, where the decision procedures are SAT solvers. We consider predicate abstraction for hardware in the framework of Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement where in the course of verification, the abstract model has to be repeatedly refined. The goal of the refinement is to eliminate spurious behavior in the abstract model which is not present in the original model, and gives rise to false negatives (spurious counterexamples).In this paper, we present two efficient SAT-based algorithms to refine abstract hardware models which deal with spurious transitions and spurious counterexamples respectively. Both algorithms make use of the conflict graphs generated by SAT solvers. The first algorithm extracts constraints from the conflict graphs which are used to make the abstract model more accurate. Once an abstract transition is determined to be spurious, our algorithm does not need to make any additional calls to SAT solver. Our second algorithm generates a compact predicate which eliminates a spurious counterexample. This algorithm uses the conflict graphs to identify the important concrete variables that render the counterexample spurious, creates an additional predicate over these concrete variables, and adds it to the abstract model. Experiments over hardware designs with several thousands of registers demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods.

Recent improvements in propositional satisfiability techniques (SAT) made it possible to tackle successfully some hard real-world problems (e.g., model-checking, circuit testing, propositional planning) by encoding into SAT. However, a purely Boolean representation is not expressive enough for many other real-world applications, including the verification of timed and hybrid systems, of proof obligations in software, and of circuit design at RTL level. These problems can be naturally modeled as satisfiability in linear arithmetic logic (LAL), that is, the Boolean combination of propositional variables and linear constraints over numerical variables. In this paper we present MathSAT, a new, SAT-based decision procedure for LAL, based on the (known approach) of integrating a state-of-the-art SAT solver with a dedicated mathematical solver for LAL. We improve MathSAT in two different directions. First, the top?level line procedure is enhanced and now features a tighter integration between the Boolean search and the mathematical solver. In particular, we allow for theory-driven backjumping and learning, and theory-driven deduction; we use static learning in order to reduce the number of Boolean models that are mathematically inconsistent; we exploit problem clustering in order to partition mathematical reasoning; and we define a stack-based interface that allows us to implement mathematical reasoning in an incremental and backtrackable way. Second, the mathematical solver is based on layering; that is, the consistency of (partial) assignments is checked in theories of increasing strength (equality and uninterpreted functions, linear arithmetic over the reals, linear arithmetic over the integers). For each of these layers, a dedicated (sub)solver is used. Cheaper solvers are called first, and detection of inconsistency makes call of the subsequent solvers superfluous. We provide a through experimental evaluation of our approach, by taking into account a large set of previously proposed benchmarks. We first investigate the relative benefits and drawbacks of each proposed technique by comparison with respect to a reference option setting. We then demonstrate the global effectiveness of our approach by a comparison with several state-of-the-art decision procedures. We show that the behavior of MathSAT is often superior to its competitors, both on LAL and in the subclass of difference logic.

: The research performed in this project began with a study and comparison of time-triggered bus architectures for critical systems and with development of flexible methods for scheduling time-triggered systems. Later work focused on automated synthesis and refutation (debugging) and developed a new method for bounded model checking over infinite domains based on integration of efficient decision procedures with SAT solving. The method was then extended to automated verification. Implementations of the method are available from SRI in our tools ICS and SAL. The approach pioneered in this project for combining decision procedures with a SAT solver has now become the dominant one for bounded model checking and automated verification.

We present a unifying framework for understanding and developing SAT-based decision procedures for Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). The framework is based on a reduction of the decision problem to propositional logic by means of a deductive system. The two commonly used techniques, eager encodings (a direct reduction to propositional logic) and lazy encodings (a family of techniques based on an interplay between a SAT solver and a decision procedure) are identified as special cases. This framework offers the first generic approach for eager encodings, and a simple generalization of various lazy techniques that are found in the literature.

Automated theorem proving is a method to establish or disprove logical theorems. While these can be theorems in the classical mathematical sense, we are more concerned with logical encodings of properties of algorithms, hardware and software. Especially in the area of hardware verification, propositional logic is used widely in industry. Satisfiability Module Theories (SMT) is a set of logics which extend propositional logic with theories relevant for specific application domains. In particular, software verification has received much attention, and efficient algorithms have been devised for reasoning over arithmetic and data types. Built-in support for theories by decision procedures is often significantly more efficient than reductions to propositional logic (SAT). Most efficient SAT solvers are based on the DPLL architecture, which is also the basis for most efficient SMT solvers. The main shortcoming of both kinds of logics is the weak support for non-ground reasoning, which noticeably limits the applicability to real world systems. The Model Evolution Calculus (ME) was devised as a lifting of the DPLL architecture from the propositional setting to full first-order logic. In previous work, we created the solver Darwin as an implementation of ME, and showed how to adapt improvements from the DPLL setting. The first half of this thesis is concerned with ME and Darwin. First, we lift a further crucial ingredient of SAT and SMT solvers, lemma-learning, to Darwin and evaluate its benefits. Then, we show how to use Darwin for finite model finding, and how this application benefits from lemma-learning.

Linear search algorithms have been shown to be particularly effective for solving partial Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) problem instances. These algorithms start by adding a new relaxation variable to each soft clause and solving the resulting formula with a SAT solver. Whenever a Model is found, a new constraint on the relaxation variables is added such that Models with a greater or equal value are excluded. However, if the problem instance has a large number of relaxation variables, then adding a new constraint over these variables can lead to the exploration of a much larger search space. This article proposes new algorithms to improve the performance of linear search algorithms for MaxSAT by using Models found by the SAT solver to partition the relaxation variables. These algorithms add a new constraint on a subset of relaxation variables, thus intensifying the search on that subspace. In addition, the proposed algorithms are further enhanced by using incremental approaches where learned clauses are kept between calls to the SAT solver. Experimental results show that Model-based algorithms can outperform a classic linear search algorithm in several problem instances. Moreover, incremental approaches further improve the performance of linear search and Model-based algorithms for MaxSAT. Overall, Model-based algorithms are competitive with state-of-the-art MaxSAT solvers, and can improve their performance when solving problem instances with a large number of soft clauses.

Haplotype inference from genotype data is a key computational problem in bioinformatics, since retrieving directly haplotype information from DNA samples is not feasible using existing technology. One of the methods for solving this problem uses the pure parsimony criterion, an approach known as Haplotype Inference by Pure Parsimony (HIPP). Initial work in this area was based on a number of different Integer Linear Programming (ILP) models and branch and bound algorithms. Recent work has shown that the utilization of a Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) formulation and state of the art SAT solvers represents the most efficient approach for solving the HIPP problem. Motivated by the promising results obtained using SAT techniques, this paper investigates the utilization of modern Pseudo-Boolean Optimization (PBO) algorithms for solving the HIPP problem. The paper starts by applying PBO to existing ILP models. The results are promising, and motivate the development of a new PBO model (RPoly) for the HIPP problem, which has a compact representation and eliminates key symmetries. Experimental results indicate that RPoly outperforms the SAT-based approach on most problem instances, being, in general, significantly more efficient.

This dissertation is to illustrate the current state of the art of DNA computing achievements, especially of new approaches to solve theoretical 3-SAT problems and the hitting-set problem. Beginning with Adleman’s breakthrough which is an molecular algorithm for the solution of a NP-complete, combinatorial problem, the directed Hamiltonian path problem (HPP). Today, many researchers all over the world concentrate on proposing new methods to solve engineering or application problems with a DNA computing approach. Satisfiability problem is given a Boolean formula, and decide if a satisfying truth assignment exists. ( ) ( ) … ( ) ( ) is an example of Boolean formula. k-SAT problem means that each clause has exactly k literals. Not-All-Equal (NAE) 3-SAT problem and One-In-Three (1IN3) 3-SAT problem are both NP-complete problems. In this dissertation, we present molecular solutions to find all true assignments (3-SAT problem) and furthermore find Not-All-Equal (NAE) solutions and One-In-Three (1IN3) solutions in DNA-based Supercomputing. Hitting-set problem assume that there exists a collection C of subsets of a finite set S, and a positive integer K  |S|, and we need to know if there is a subset  S with | |  K such that contains at least one element of each subset in C. In other words, is the subset that intersects every subset in C and is called the hitting-set. In this dissertation, a DNA-based algorithm is proposed to solve the small hitting-set problem. A small hitting-set is a hitting-set with the smallest K value, i.e., the hitting-set with the smallest number of elements. Furthermore, an algorithm is introduced to find the number of ones from 2n combinations and minimum numbers of ones represents the small hitting-set since K is expected to be as small as possible. The complexity of all the presented DNA-based algorithms is also discussed. We describe time complexity and volume complexity of three Algorithms, numbers of test tube used and the longest library strand in solution space of all three Algorithms. Finally, the simulated experiment is applied to verify correctness of the proposed DNA-based algorithm for solving the One-In-Three (1IN3) 3-SAT problem, and simulation of Not-All-Equal (NAE) 3-SAT problem is similar. Also, another simulated experiment is applied to our proposed DNA-based algorithm 6-2, in order to solve the well-known hitting-set problem. This research has been motivated by the benefit and the application of DNA computing and gives new methods to solve two 3-SAT problems and the hitting-set problem which are NP-complete.

We present a set of SAT-based decision procedures for various classical modal logics. By SAT based, we mean built on top of a SAT solver. We show how the SAT-based approach allows for a modular implementation for these logics. For some of the logics we deal with, we are not aware of any other implementation. For the others, we define a testing methodology that generalizes the 3CNFi>K methodology by Giunchiglia and Sebastiani. The experimental evaluation shows that our decision procedures perform better than or as well as other state-of-the-art decision procedures.

Given a formula in quantifier-free Presburger arithmetic, if it has a satisfying solution, there is one whose size, measured in bits, is polynomially bounded in the size of the formula. In this paper, we consider a special class of quantifier-free Presburger formulas in which most linear constraints are difference (separation) constraints, and the non-difference constraints are sparse. This class has been observed to commonly occur in software verification. We derive a new solution bound in terms of parameters characterizing the sparseness of linear constraints and the number of non-difference constraints, in addition to traditional measures of formula size. In particular, we show that the number of bits needed per integer variable is linear in the number of non-difference constraints and logarithmic in the number and size of non-zero coefficients in them, but is otherwise independent of the total number of linear constraints in the formula. The derived bound can be used in a decision procedure based on instantiating integer variables over a finite domain and translating the input quantifier-free Presburger formula to an equi-satisfiable Boolean formula, which is then checked using a Boolean satisfiability solver. In addition to our main theoretical result, we discuss several optimizations for deriving tighter bounds in practice. Empirical evidence indicates that our decision procedure can greatly outperform other decision procedures.