Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data Compression for Proof Replay

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

Abstract

We describe a compressing translation from SAT solver generated propositional resolution refutation proofs to classical natural deduction proofs. The resulting proof can usually be checked quicker than one that simply simulates the original resolution proof. We use this result in interactive theorem provers, to speed up reconstruction of SAT solver generated proofs. The translation is fast and scales up to large proofs with millions of inferences.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Resolution is not automatizable unless W[P] is tractable. In: FOCS, pp. 210–219. IEEE, Piscataway (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, R. (ed.) Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems. LNCS, vol. 1579. Springer, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bryant, R.E., Lahiri, S., Seshia, S.: Modeling and verifying systems using a logic of counter arithmetic with lambda expressions and uninterpreted functions. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) Proc. 14th Intl. Conference on Computer Aided Verification. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 78–92. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2004). LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms. MIT, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Diestel, R.: Graph Theory. Springer, New York (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, 6th International Conference. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fontaine, P., Marion, J.-Y., Merz, S., Nieto, L.P., Tiu, A.F.: Expressiveness + automation + soundness: towards combining SMT solvers and interactive proof assistants. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 167–181. Springer, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gershman, R., Koifman, M., Strichman, O.: Deriving small unsatisfiable cores with dominators. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 109–122. Springer, New York (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon, M.J.C., Melham, T.F. (eds.) Introduction to HOL: a Theorem-Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gusfield, D.: Algorithmson String, Trees, and Sequences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harel, D., Tarjan, R.E.: Fast algorithms for finding nearest common ancestors. SIAM J. Comput. 13(2), 338–355 (1984)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Harrison, J.: Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: a Survey and Critique. Technical Report CRC-053, SRI International (1995)

  15. Harrison, J.: HOL light: a tutorial introduction. In: Srivas, M.K., Camilleri, A.J. (eds.) FMCAD. LNCS, vol. 1166, pp. 265–269. Springer, New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harrison, J.: Stålmarck’s algorithm as a HOL derived rule. In: von Wright, J., Grundy, J., Harrison, J. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. LNCS, vol. 1125, pp. 221–234. Springer, New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hickey, J., Nogin, A., Constable, R.L., Aydemir, B.E., Barzilay, E., Bryukhov, Y., Eaton, R., Granicz, A., Kopylov, A., Kreitz, C., Krupski, V., Lorigo, L., Schmitt, S., Witty, C., Yu, X.: Metaprl—a modular logical environment. In: Basin, D.A., Wolff, B. (eds.) TPHOLs. LNCS, vol. 2758, pp. 287–303. Springer, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Huet, G., Kahn, G., Paulin-Mohring, C.: The Coq Proof Assistant: a Tutorial: Version 7.2. Technical Report RT-0256, INRIA (2002)

  19. Inenaga, S., Hoshino, H., Shinohara, A., Takeda, M., Arikawa, S., Mauri, G., Pavesi, G.: On-line construction of compact directed acyclic word graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 146(2), 156–179 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Mitchell, D.G.: A SAT solver primer. In: EATCS Bulletin. The Logic in Computer Science Column, vol. 85, pp. 112–133. Springer, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morrison, D.R.: PATRICIA-practical algorithm to retrieve information coded in alphanumeric. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 15(4), 514–534 (1968)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, pp. 530–535. ACM, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Owre, S., Rushby, J.M., Shankar, N.: PVS: a prototype verification system. In: Kapur, D. (ed.) 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE). LNAI, vol. 607, pp. 748–752. Springer, New York (1992). http://pvs.csl.sri.com

    Google Scholar 

  24. Paulson, L.C.: Isabelle: a Generic Theorem Prover. LNCS, vol. 828. Springer, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shankar, N.: Using decision procedures with a higher-order logic. In: Boulton, R.J., Jackson, P.B. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, LNCS, vol. 2152, pp. 5–26. Springer, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Sinz, C.: Compressing propositional proofs by common subproof extraction. In: Pichler, F. (ed.) Euro Conference on Computer Aided Systems Theory, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 12–16 February 2007

  27. Ukkonen, E.: Online construction of suffix trees. Algorithmica 14(3), 249–260 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Weber, T., Amjad, H.: Efficiently checking propositional refutations in HOL theorem provers. JAL (2008). doi:10.1016/j.jal.2007.07.003

  29. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: practical implementations and other applications. In: DATE, pp. 10880–10885. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, William Gates Building, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0FD, UK

    Hasan Amjad

Authors
  1. Hasan Amjad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasan Amjad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amjad, H. Data Compression for Proof Replay. J Autom Reasoning 41, 193–218 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9109-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9109-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation