Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solving Quantifier-Free First-Order Constraints Over Finite Sets and Binary Relations

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present a solver for a first-order logic language where sets and binary relations can be freely and naturally combined. The language can express, at least, any full set relation algebra on finite sets. It provides untyped, hereditarily finite sets, whose elements can be variables, and basically all the classic set and relational operators used in formal languages such as B and Z. Sets are first-class entities in the language, thus they are not encoded in lower level theories. Relations are just sets of ordered pairs. The solver exploits set unification and set constraint solving as primitive features. The solver is proved to be a sound semi-decision procedure for the accepted language. A Prolog implementation is presented and an extensive empirical evaluation provides evidence of its usefulness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. More precisely, each solution of \(\varPhi \) expanded to the variables occurring in \(\varPhi _i\) but not in \(\varPhi \), so as to account for the possible fresh variables introduced into \(\varPhi _i\).

  2. Actually there is some overlapping among these collections. This is difficult to avoid, as each author uses different variable names, the problem can be stated in slightly different ways (e.g., by applying commutativity) and even different names for the same operator are used (e.g., sum and union).

  3. Most of the time is spent in solving 27 problems of tptp.bool encoding rather complex Boolean results where instead of using Boolean variables, we prove more general results by using finite set variables.

References

  1. Andréka, H., Givant, S.R., Németi, I.: Decision Problems for Equational Theories of Relation Algebras, vol. 604. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Arias, E.J.G., Lipton, J., Mariño, J.: Constraint logic programming with a relational machine. For. Asp. Comput. 29(1), 97–124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-016-0369-z

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong, A., Struth, G., Weber, T.: Program analysis and verification based on Kleene algebra in Isabelle/HOL. In: Blazy, S., Paulin-Mohring, C., Pichardie, D. (eds.) Interactive Theorem Proving—4th International Conference, ITP 2013, Rennes, France, July 22–26, 2013. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7998, pp. 197–212. Springer, Berlin (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39634-2_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Azevedo, F.: Cardinal: a finite sets constraint solver. Constraints 12(1), 93–129 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-006-9012-6

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Berghammer, R.: Relview. http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~progsys/relview/

  6. Berghammer, R., Hoffmann, T., Leoniuk, B., Milanese, U.: Prototyping and programming with relations. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 44(3), 27–50 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0661(04)80931-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berghammer, R., Höfner, P., Stucke, I.: Automated verification of relational while-programs. In: Höfner, P., Jipsen, P., Kahl, W., Müller, M.E. (eds.) Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science—14th International Conference, RAMiCS 2014, Marienstatt, Germany, April 28–May 1, 2014. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8428, pp. 173–190. Springer, Berlin (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06251-8_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernard, E., Legeard, B., Luck, X., Peureux, F.: Generation of test sequences from formal specifications: GSM 11-11 standard case study. Int. J. Softw. Pract. Exp. 34(10), 915–948 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bobot, F., Filliâtre, J.C., Marché, C., Paskevich, A.: Why3: shepherd your herd of provers. In: Boogie 2011: 1st International Workshop on Intermediate Verification Languages. Wrocław, Poland (August 2011). http://proval.lri.fr/submissions/boogie11.pdf

  10. Broome, P., Lipton, J.: Combinatory logic programming: computing in relation calculi. In: Bruynooghe, M. (ed.) Logic Programming, Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium, Ithaca, New York, USA, November 13–17, 1994, pp. 269–285. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

  11. Cantone, D., Longo, C.: A decidable two-sorted quantified fragment of set theory with ordered pairs and some undecidable extensions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 307–325 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.03.021

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Cantone, D., Omodeo, E.G., Policriti, A.: Set Theory for Computing—from Decision Procedures to Declarative Programming with Sets. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3452-2

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cantone, D., Schwartz, J.T.: Decision procedures for elementary sublanguages of set theory: XI. Multilevel syllogistic extended by some elementary map constructs. J. Autom. Reason. 7(2), 231–256 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00243808

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Claessen, K., Sörensson, N.: New techniques that improve MACE-style finite model building. In: CADE-19 Workshop: Model Computation—Principles, Algorithms, Applications, pp. 11–27 (2003)

  15. Clearsy: Aterlier B home page. http://www.atelierb.eu/

  16. Conchon, S., Iguernlala, M.: Increasing Proofs Automation Rate of Atelier-B Thanks to Alt-Ergo, pp. 243–253. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33951-1_18

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Coq Development Team: The Coq proof assistant reference manual, version 8.8.1. LogiCal Project, Palaiseau (2018)

  18. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G.: Rewrite rules for a solver for sets, binary relations and partial functions. http://people.dmi.unipr.it/gianfranco.rossi/SETLOG/calculus.pdf

  19. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G.: Rapid prototyping and animation of Z specifications using \(\{\log \}\). In: 1st International Workshop about Sets and Tools (SETS 2014), pp. 4–18 (2014), Informal Proceedings. http://sets2014.cnam.fr/papers/sets2014.pdf

  20. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G.: A decision procedure for sets, binary relations and partial functions. In: Chaudhuri, S., Farzan, A. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification—28th International Conference, CAV 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17–23, 2016, Proceedings, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9779, pp. 179–198. Springer, Berlin (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41528-4_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G.: A decision procedure for restricted intensional sets. In: de Moura [28], pp. 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G.: Detailed proofs of \({\cal{L}}_{{\cal{BR}}}\) properties for the paper: “solving quantifier-free first-order constraints over finite sets and binary relations” (2018). https://www.dropbox.com/s/jlisk0vngeb42c3/proofs.pdf?dl=0

  23. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G., Frydman, C.: Using a set constraint solver for program verification. In: Proceedings 4th Workshop on Horn Clauses for Verification and Synthesis, HCVS@CADE 2017, Gothenburg, Sweden, 7th August 2017 (2017). http://software.imdea.org/Conferences/hcvs17/

  24. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G., Frydman, C.S.: log as a test case generator for the Test Template Framework. In: Hierons, R.M., Merayo, M.G., Bravetti, M. (eds.) SEFM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8137, pp. 229–243. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Cristiá, M., Rossi, G., Frydman, C.S.: Adding partial functions to constraint logic programming with sets. TPLP 15(4–5), 651–665 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068415000290

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Déharbe, D., Fontaine, P., Guyot, Y., Voisin, L.: Integrating SMT solvers in rodin. Sci. Comput. Program. 94, 130–143 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2014.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Deville, Y., Dooms, G., Zampelli, S., Dupont, P.: CP(graph+map) for approximate graph matching. In: 1st International Workshop on Constraint Programming Beyond Finite Integer Domains, pp. 31–47 (2005)

  28. de Moura, L. (ed.): Automated Deduction—CADE 26–26th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Gothenburg, Sweden, August 6–11, 2017, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10395. Springer, Berlin (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Generalized, efficient array decision procedures. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2009, 15–18 November 2009, Austin, Texas, USA, pp. 45–52. IEEE, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351142

  30. Dovier, A., Omodeo, E.G., Pontelli, E., Rossi, G.: A language for programming in logic with finite sets. J. Log. Program. 28(1), 1–44 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-1066(95)00147-6

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Dovier, A., Piazza, C., Pontelli, E., Rossi, G.: Sets and constraint logic programming. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 22(5), 861–931 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dovier, A., Pontelli, E., Rossi, G.: Set unification. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 6(6), 645–701 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068406002730

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Gervet, C.: Interval propagation to reason about sets: definition and implementation of a practical language. Constraints 1(3), 191–244 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137870

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Givant, S.: The calculus of relations as a foundation for mathematics. J. Autom. Reasoning 37(4), 277–322 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9062-x

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Guttmann, W., Struth, G., Weber, T.: A repository for Tarski–Kleene algebras. In: Höfner, P., McIver, A., Struth, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Automated Theory Engineering, Wrocław, Poland, July 31, 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 760, pp. 30–39. CEUR-WS.org (2011). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-760/paper5.pdf

  36. Hawkins, P., Lagoon, V., Stuckey, P.J.: Solving set constraint satisfaction problems using ROBDDs. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 24, 109–156 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1638

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Hinman, P.: Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2018). https://books.google.it/books?id=6UBZDwAAQBAJ

  38. Höfner, P., Struth, G.: On automating the calculus of relations. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) Automated Reasoning, 4th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2008, Sydney, Australia, August 12–15, 2008, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5195, pp. 50–66. Springer, Berlin (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71070-7_5

  39. Jackson, D.: Alloy: A logical modelling language. In: Bert, D., Bowen, J.P., King, S., Waldén, M.A. (eds.) ZB 2003: Formal Specification and Development in Z and B, 3rd International Conference of B and Z Users, Turku, Finland, June 4–6, 2003, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2651, p. 1. Springer, Berlin (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44880-2_1

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kahl, W.: Relational semigroupoids: abstract relation-algebraic interfaces for finite relations between infinite types. J. Log. Algebra Program. 76(1), 60–89 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2007.10.008

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Kröning, D., Rümmer, P., Weissenbacher, G.: A proposal for a theory of finite sets, lists, and maps for the SMT-Lib standard. In: Informal proceedings, 7th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories at CADE 22 (2009)

  43. Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: A model checker for B. In: Keijiro, A., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. McCune, W.: Prover9 and mace4 (2005–2010). http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/prover9/

  45. Meng, B., Reynolds, A., Tinelli, C., Barrett, C.W.: Relational constraint solving in SMT. In: de Moura [28], pp. 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Mentré, D., Marché, C., Filliâtre, J.C., Asuka, M.: Discharging proof obligations from Atelier B using multiple automated provers. In: Derrick, J., Fitzgerald, J.A., Gnesi, S., Khurshid, S., Leuschel, M., Reeves, S., Riccobene, E. (eds.) ABZ. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7316, pp. 238–251. Springer, Berlin (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL—A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2283. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Rossi, G.: \(\{\log \}\) (2008). http://people.dmi.unipr.it/gianfranco.rossi/setlog.Home.html

  49. Saaltink, M.: The Z/EVES mathematical toolkit version 2.2 for Z/EVES version 1.5. Techical Report, ORA Canada (1997)

  50. Saaltink, M.: The Z/EVES system. In: Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G., Till, D. (eds.) ZUM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1212, pp. 72–85. Springer, Berlin (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schmidt, G., Hattensperger, C., Winter, M.: Heterogeneous Relation Algebra, pp. 39–53. Springer, Vienna (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6510-2_3

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Sutcliffe, G.: The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure: the FOF and CNF parts, v3.5.0. J. Autom. Reason. 43(4), 337–362 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. Tarski, A.: On the calculus of relations. J. Symb. Log. 6(3), 73–89 (1941). https://doi.org/10.2307/2268577

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 13th International Conference, TACAS 2007, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2007 Braga, Portugal, March 24–April 1, 2007, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Berlin (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71209-1_49

  55. Zhang, J., Zhang, H.: System description: generating models by SEM. In: McRobbie, M.A., Slaney, J.K. (eds.) Automated Deduction—CADE-13, 13th International Conference on Automated Deduction, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, July 30–August 3, 1996, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1104, pp. 308–312. Springer, Berlin (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61511-3_96

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Nacional de Rosario and CIFASIS, Rosario, Argentina

    Maximiliano Cristiá

  2. Università di Parma, Parma, Italy

    Gianfranco Rossi

Authors
  1. Maximiliano Cristiá
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianfranco Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maximiliano Cristiá.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 565 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cristiá, M., Rossi, G. Solving Quantifier-Free First-Order Constraints Over Finite Sets and Binary Relations. J Autom Reasoning 64, 295–330 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-019-09520-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-019-09520-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation