An Approximation Framework for Solvers and Decision Procedures
 1k Downloads
 1 Citations
Abstract
We consider the problem of automatically and efficiently computing models of constraints, in the presence of complex background theories such as floatingpoint arithmetic. Constructing models, or proving that a constraint is unsatisfiable, has various applications, for instance for automatic generation of test inputs. It is wellknown that a naïve encoding of constraints into simpler theories (for instance, bitvectors or propositional logic) often leads to a drastic increase in size, or that it is unsatisfactory in terms of the resulting space and runtime demands. We define a framework for systematic application of approximations in order to improve performance. Our method is more general than previous techniques in the sense that approximations that are neither under nor overapproximations can be used, and it shows promising performance on practically relevant benchmark problems.
Keywords
Approximation Theory Decision Procedure Conjunctive Normal Form Predicate Symbol Satisfiability Modulo Theory1 Introduction
The construction of satisfying assignments (or, more generally, models) for a set of given constraints, or showing that no such assignments exist, is one of the most central problems in automated reasoning. Although the problem has been addressed extensively in research fields including constraint programming and more recently in satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), there are still constraint languages and background theories where effective model construction is challenging. Such theories are, in particular, arithmetic domains such as bitvectors, nonlinear real arithmetic (or realclosed fields), and floatingpoint arithmetic (FPA); even when decidable, the high computational complexity of such languages turns model construction into a bottleneck in applications such as bounded model checking, whitebox test case generation, analysis of hybrid systems, and mathematical reasoning in general.
We follow a recent line of research that applies the concept of abstraction to model construction (e.g., [3, 5, 10, 19]). In this setting, constraints are usually simplified prior to solving to obtain over or underapproximations, or some combination thereof (mixed abstractions); experiments have shown that this concept can speed up model construction significantly. However, previous work in this area suffers from the fact that the definition of good over and underapproximations is difficult and limiting, for instance in the context of floatingpoint arithmetic. We argue that the focus on over and underapproximations is neither necessary nor optimal: as a more flexible alternative, we present a general algorithm that is able to incorporate any form of approximation in the solving process, including approximations that cannot naturally be represented as a combination of over and underapproximations. Our method preserves essential properties like soundness, completeness, and termination.
For the purpose of empirical evaluation, we instantiate our procedure for the domain of floatingpoint arithmetic, and present an evaluation based on an implementation thereof within the Z3 theorem prover [22]. Experiments on practically relevant and satisfiable floatingpoint benchmark problems (SMTLIB QF_FP) show an average speedup of roughly one order of magnitude when compared to the naïve bitblastingbased default decision procedure that comes with Z3. Further experiments show that the performance of our prototype implementation is also competitive with other stateoftheart solvers for floatingpoint arithmetic.
While mainly intended for model generation, our method can also show unsatisfiability of constraints, and thanks to a new technique for refinement of unsatisfiable (sub)problems, only a small performance penalty is incurred on them. However, we believe that further research is necessary to improve reasoning for unsatisfiable problems, even though our current prototype implementation exhibits satisfactory performance on unsatisfiable benchmark problems.
 1.
a general method for model construction that can make use of arbitrary approximations of constraints,
 2.
an instantiation of our method for the theory of floatingpoint arithmetic,
 3.
refinement techniques for approximate models and unsatisfiable problems, as well as
 4.
an experimental evaluation of a prototype implementation of all proposed methods.
1.1 Motivating Example
All variables in this example range over double precision (64bit) IEEE754 floatingpoint numbers. The controller is initialized with the set_point value and the constants Kp and Ki, it reads input values (in; e.g., from a sensor) via function read_input, and it computes output values (out) which control the system through the function set_output. The controller computes the control values in such a way, that the input values are as close to set_point as possible. For simplicity, we assume that there is a bounded number N of control iterations.
Suppose we want to prove that if the input values stay within the range \(18.0 \le \textsf {in} \le 22.0\), then the control values will stay within a range that we consider safe, for instance \(3.0 \le \textsf {out} \le +3.0\). This property is true of our controller only for two control iterations, but it can be violated within three.
Behavior of Z3 on the PI controller example
Bound N  1  2  5  10  20  30  40  50  100 

Clauses (\(\times 10^3\))  96  230  630  1298  2633  3969  5304  6639  13316 
Variables (\(\times 10^3\))  12  28  78  161  326  492  657  822  1649 
Z3 time (s)  1  5  19  27  288  1190  1962  3297  >1h 

all operations in the program can be evaluated in real instead of floatingpoint arithmetic. For problems with only linear operations, such as the program at hand, this enables the use of highly efficient solvers based on linear programming (LP). However, the straightforward encoding into LP would ignore the possibility of overflows or rounding errors. A bounded model checking approach based thereupon will therefore be neither sound nor complete. Further, little is gained in terms of computational complexity for nonlinear constraints.

operations can be evaluated in fixedpoint arithmetic. Again, this encoding does not preserve the overflow and roundingsemantics of FPA, but it enables solving using more efficient bitvector encodings and solvers.

operations can be evaluated in FPA with reduced precision: we can use single precision numbers, or other formats even smaller than that.
2 Related Work
Related work to our contribution falls into two categories: general abstraction and approximation frameworks, and specific decision procedures for floatingpoint arithmetic.
The concept of abstraction (and approximation) is central to software engineering and program verification, and it is increasingly employed in general mathematical reasoning and in decision procedures. Usually, and in contrast to our work, only under and overapproximations are considered, i.e., the formula that is solved either implies or is implied by an approximate formula (or abstraction). Counterexample guided abstraction refinement [7] is a general concept that is applied in many verification tools and decision procedures (e.g., even on a relatively low level like in QBF [18] or in model based quantifier instantiation for SMT [13]).
A general framework for abstracting decision procedures is Abstract CDCL, recently introduced by D’Silva et al. [10], which was also instantiated with great success for FPA [2, 11]. This approach relies on the definition of suitable abstract domains for constraint propagation and learning. In our experimental evaluation, we compare to the FPA decision procedure in MathSAT, which is an instance of ACDCL. ACDCL can also be integrated with our framework, e.g., to solve approximations. A further framework for abstraction in theorem proving was proposed by Giunchiglia et al. [14]. Again, this work focuses on under and overapproximations, not on other forms of approximation.
Specific instantiations of abstraction schemes in related areas include the bitvector abstractions by Bryant et al. [5] and Brummayer and Biere [4], as well as the (mixed) floatingpoint abstractions by Brillout et al. [3]. Van Khanh and Ogawa present over and underapproximations for solving polynomials over reals [19]. Gao et al. [12] present a \(\delta \)complete decision procedure for nonlinear reals, considering overapproximations of constraints by means of \(\delta \)weakening.
There is a long history of formalization and analysis of FPA concerns using proof assistants, among others in Coq by Melquiond [21] and in HOL Light by Harrison [15]. Coq has also been integrated with a dedicated floatingpoint prover called Gappa by Boldo et al. [1], which is based on interval reasoning and forward error propagation to determine bounds on arithmetic expressions in programs [9]. The ASTRÉE static analyzer [8] features abstract interpretationbased analyses for FPA overflow and divisionbyzero problems in ANSIC programs. The SMT solvers MathSAT [6], Z3 [22], and Sonolar [20], all feature (bitprecise) conversions from FPA to bitvector constraints.
3 Preliminaries
We establish a formal basis in the context of multisorted firstorder logic (e.g., [16]). A signature \(\varSigma =(S, P, F, \alpha )\) consists of a set of sort symbols S, a set of sorted predicate symbols P, a set of sorted function symbols F, and a sort mapping \(\alpha \). Each predicate and function symbol \(g \in P \cup F\) is assigned a \((k+1)\)tuple \(\alpha (g)\) of argument sorts (with \(k\ge 0\)), where k is the arity of the symbol. Constants are considered to be nullary function symbols. Also, the Boolean sort symbol is included in the set of sorts, i.e. \(s_b\in S\). We assume a countably infinite set X of variables, and (by abuse of notation) overload \(\alpha \) to assign sorts also to variables. Given a multisorted signature \(\varSigma \) and variables X, the notions of wellsorted terms, atoms, literals, clauses, and formulas are defined as usual. The function \( fv (\phi )\) denotes the set of free variables in a formula \(\phi \). In what follows, we assume that all formulas are quantifierfree.
A \(\varSigma \)structure \(m=(U,I)\) with underlying universe U and interpretation function I maps each sort \(s \in S\) to a nonempty set \(I(s) \subseteq U\), each predicate \(p \in P\) of sorts \((s_1,s_2,\ldots ,s_k)\) to a relation \(I(p) \subseteq I(s_{1})\times I(s_{2}) \times \ldots \times I(s_{k})\), and each function \(f \in F\) of sort \((s_1,s_2,\ldots ,s_k,s_{k+1})\) to a settheoretic function \(I(f) : I(s_{1}) \times I(s_{2}) \times \ldots \times I(s_{k}) \rightarrow I(s_{k+1})\). A variable assignment \(\beta \) under a \(\varSigma \)structure m maps each variable \(x\in X\) to an element \(\beta (x) \in I(\alpha (x))\). The valuation function \( val _{m,\beta }(\cdot )\) is defined for terms and formulas in the usual way. A theory T is a pair \((\varSigma , M)\) of a multisorted signature \(\varSigma \) and a class of \(\varSigma \)structures M. A formula \(\phi \) is Tsatisfiable if there is a structure \(m \in M\) and a variable assignment \(\beta \) such that \(\phi \) evaluates to \( true \); we denote this by \(m, \beta \models _T \phi \), and call \(\beta \) a Tsolution of \(\phi \).
4 The Approximation Framework
4.1 Approximation Theories
In order to formalize the approach of finding models by means of approximation, we construct the approximation theory \(\hat{T} = (\hat{\varSigma },\hat{M})\) from T, by extending all function and predicate symbols with a new argument representing the precision to which the function or predicate should be computed.

for every structure \((\hat{U},\hat{I}) \in \hat{M}\), the relation \(\hat{I}(\preceq )\) is a partial order on \(\hat{I}(s_{p})\) that satisfies the ascending chain condition (every ascending chain is finite), and that has the unique greatest element \(\hat{I}(\omega ) \in \hat{I}(s_{p})\);
 for every structure \((U, I) \in M\), an approximation structure \((\hat{U},\hat{I}) \in \hat{M}\) extending (U, I) exists, together with an embedding \(h:U \mapsto \hat{U}\) such that, for every sort \(s \in S\), function \(f \in F\), and predicate \(p \in P\):$$\begin{aligned} h(I(s))&~~\,\subseteq ~~ \hat{I}(s)\\ (a_1, \ldots , a_n) \in I(p)&\iff (\hat{I}(\omega ), h(a_1), \ldots , h(a_n)) \in \hat{I}(p)&(a_i \in I(\alpha (p)_i))\\ h(I(f)(a_1, \ldots , a_n))&~~\,=~~ \hat{I}(f)(\hat{I}(\omega ), h(a_1), \ldots , h(a_n))&(a_i \in I(\alpha (f)_i)) \end{aligned}$$

vice versa; for every approximation structure \((\hat{U},\hat{I}) \in \hat{M}\) there is a structure \((U, I) \in M\) that is similarly embedded in \((\hat{U},\hat{I})\).
4.2 Application to FloatingPoint Arithmetic
Proposition 1
(Inclusion property) FP domains grow monotonically when increasing e or s, i.e., \( FP _{s',e'} \subseteq FP _{s,e}\) provided that \(s' \le s\) and \(e' \le e\); we call this the inclusion property.

\( RoundTowardZero \),

\( RoundNearestTiesToEven \),

\( RoundNearestTiesToAway \),

\( RoundTowardPositive \), and

\( RoundTowardNegative \).
FPA approximation theories We construct the approximation theory \(\hat{ TF }_{s,e}\), by introducing the precision sort \(s_p\), predicate symbol \(\preceq \), and a constant symbol \(\omega \). The function and predicate symbols have their signature changed to include the precision argument. For example, the signature of the floatingpoint addition symbol \(\oplus \) is \(\hat{\alpha }(\oplus )=(s_p, s_{r}, s_{f}, s_{f}, s_{f})\) in the approximation theory.
4.3 Lifting Constraints to Approximate Constraints
Lemma 1
(Completeness) If a Tconstraint \(\phi \) is Tsatisfiable, then the lifted constraint \(\hat{\phi } = L(\epsilon , \phi )\) is \(\hat{T}\)satisfiable as well.
In practice, the lifting can make use of expression sharing and cache lifted terms to avoid introduction of unnecessary precision variables or redundant subterms.
An approximate model that chooses full precision for all operations induces a model for the original constraint:
Lemma 2
(Fully precise operations) Let \(\hat{m} = (\hat{U}, \hat{I})\) be a \(\hat{T}\)structure, and \(\hat{\beta }\) a variable assignment. If \(\hat{m}, \hat{\beta } \models _{\hat{T}} \hat{\phi }\) for an approximate constraint \(\hat{\phi } = L(\epsilon , \phi )\), then \(m, \beta \models _T \phi \), provided that: 1. there is a Tstructure m embedded in \(\hat{m}\) via h, and a variable assignment \(\beta \) such that \(h(\beta (x)) = \hat{\beta }(x)\) for all variables \(x \in fv (\phi )\), and 2. \(\hat{\beta } (c_l) = \hat{I}(\omega )\) for all precision variables \(c_l\) introduced by L.
The fully precise case however, is not the only case in which an approximate model is easily translated to a precise model. For instance, approximate operations might still yield a precise result for some arguments. Examples of this are constraints in floatingpoint arithmetic with small integer or fixedpoint arithmetic solutions.
A variation of Lemma 2 is obtained by not requiring that all operations are at maximum precision, but that each operation is at a sufficiently high precision, such that it evaluates to the same value as the maximally precise operation in all relevant cases:
Lemma 3
(Locally precise operations) Suppose \(\hat{m}, \hat{\beta } \models _{\hat{T}} \hat{\phi }\) for an approximate constraint \(\hat{\phi } = L(\epsilon , \phi )\), such that: 1. there is a Tstructure m embedded in \(\hat{m}\) via h and a variable assignment \(\beta \) such that \(h(\beta (x)) = \hat{\beta }(x)\) for all variables \(x \in fv (\phi )\), and 2. for every subexpression \(g(c_l, \bar{t})\) with \(g \in F \cup P\), it holds that \( val _{\hat{m}, \hat{\beta }}(g(c_l, \bar{t})) = val _{\hat{m}, \hat{\beta }}(g(\omega , \bar{t}))\). Then \(m, \beta \models _T \phi \).
Applied to FPABecause floatingpoint numbers of varying bitwidths enjoy the inclusion property, it is easy to see that an approximate model \(\hat{m}, \hat{\beta }\) for an approximate \(\hat{\phi }\) which, during model evaluation (validation) does not trigger any rounding decisions, must equally entail the original, precise constraint \(\phi \).
Theorem 1
(Exact evaluation) Let \(\hat{m}\) be the unique element of the singleton set of structures \(\hat{m}_{s,e}\) of theory \(\hat{TF}_{s,e}\). Suppose \({\hat{m}, \hat{\beta } \models _{\hat{TF}_{s,e}} \hat{\phi }}\) for an approximate constraint \(\hat{\phi } = L(\epsilon , \phi )\), such that: 1. m is the Tstructure of theory \(TF_{s,e}\) embedded in \(\hat{m}\) via h (which is the identity function) and \(\beta \) a variable assignment such that \(h(\beta (x)) = \hat{\beta }(x)\) for all variables \(x \in fv (\phi )\), and 2. it is possible to evaluate all operations \(\hat{\phi }\) exactly, i.e. without rounding. Then \(m, \beta \models _{TF_{s,e}} \phi \).
Proof
By Lemma 3 and the inclusion property. \(\square \)
Example 1
5 Model Refinement Scheme
In the following sections, we will use the approximation framework to successively construct more and more precise solutions of given constraints, until eventually either a genuine solution is found, or the constraints are determined to be unsatisfiable. We fix a partially ordered precision domain \((D_p, \preceq _p)\) (where, as before, \(\preceq _p\) satisfies the ascending chain condition, and has a greatest element), and consider approximation structures \({(\hat{U}, \hat{I})}\) such that \({\hat{I}(s_{p})} = D_p\) and \(\hat{I}(\preceq ) = \;\preceq _p\).
Given a lifted constraint \(\hat{\phi } = L(\epsilon , \phi )\), let \(X_p \subseteq X\) be the set of precision variables introduced by the function L. A precision assignment \(\gamma : X_p \rightarrow D_p\) maps the precision variables to precision values. We write \(\gamma \preceq _p \gamma '\) if for all variables \(c_l \in X_p\) we have \(\gamma (c_l) \preceq _p \gamma '(c_l)\). Precision assignments are partially ordered by \(\preceq _p\). There is a greatest precision assignment \(\gamma _\omega \), which maps each precision variable to \(\omega \). The precision assignment can be obtained from the variable assignment \(\hat{\beta }\) after the solving, but due to its role in controlling the search through the space of approximations (by fixing its values before solving) we separate it from \(\beta \).
General properties Since \(\preceq _p\) has the ascending chain property, our procedure is guaranteed to terminate and either produce a genuine precise model, or detect unsatisfiability of the constraints. The potential benefits of this approach are that it often takes less time to solve multiple smaller (approximate) problems than to solve the full problem straight away. The candidate models provide useful hints for the following iterations. The downside is that it might be necessary to solve the whole problem eventually anyway, which can be the case for unsatisfiable problems. Whether that is the case depends on the strategy used in the proofguided approximation refinement, e.g., maximizing the precision of terms involved in an unsatisfiable core can cut down the overhead significantly compared to even increase in precision of all terms. Therefore, our approach is definitely useful when the goal is to obtain a model, e.g., when searching for counterexamples, but it can also perform well on unsatisfiable formulas, e.g., when a small unsatisfiable core can be discovered quickly.
5.1 Approximate Model Construction
Once a precision assignment \(\gamma \) has been fixed, existing solvers for the operations in the approximation theory can be used to construct a model \(\hat{m}\) and a variable assignment \(\hat{\beta }\) s.t. \(\hat{m},\hat{\beta }\models _{\hat{T}}\hat{\phi }\). It is necessary that \(\hat{\beta }\) and \(\gamma \) agree on \(X_p\). As an optimization, the model search can be formulated in various theorydependent ways that provide a heuristic benefit to Precise Model Reconstruction. For example, the search can prefer models with small values of some error criterion, or to attempt to find models that are similar to models found in earlier iterations. This can be done by encoding the problem as an optimization query, assuming one can encode the desired criteria as part of the formula.
Applied to FPA Since our FP approximations are again formulated using FP semantics, any solver for FPA can be used for Approximate Model Construction. In our implementation, the lifted constraints \(\hat{\phi }\) of \(\hat{TF}_{s,e}\) are encoded in bitvector arithmetic, and then bitblasted and solved using a SAT solver. The encoding of a particular function or predicate symbol uses the precision argument to determine the floatingpoint domain of the interpretation. This kind of approximation reduces the size of the encoding of each operation, and results in smaller problems handed over to the SAT solver. An example of theoryspecific optimization of the model search is to prefer models where no rounding occurs during evaluation.
5.2 Reconstructing Precise Models
Note that by definition it is possible to embed a Tstructure m in \(\hat{m}\). It is retrieved, together with the embedding h, by extract_Tstructure in Algorithm 2. The structure m and h will be used to evaluate \(\phi \) using values from \(\hat{\beta }\). The function extract_asserted_literals determines a set \( lits \) of literals in \(\hat{\phi }\) that are true under \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\), such that the conjunction \(\bigwedge lits \) implies \(\hat{\phi }\). For instance, if \(\hat{\phi }\) is in CNF, one literal per clause can be selected that is true under \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\). Any pair \((m, \beta )\) that satisfies the literals in \( lits \) will be a Tmodel of \(\phi \).
After all literals have been successfully asserted, \(\beta \) may be incomplete, so we complete it (either randomly or by mapping value assignments from \(\hat{\beta }\)) and return the model \((m,\beta )\). Note that, if all the asserted literals already have maximum precision assigned then, by Lemma 2, model reconstruction cannot fail.
Applied to FPAThe function extract_Tstructure is trivial for our FPA approximations, since m and \(\hat{m}\) coincide for the sort \(s_{f}\) of FP numbers. Further, by approximating FPA using smaller domains of FP numbers, all of which are subsets of the original domain, reconstruction of models is easy in some cases and boils down to padding the obtained values with zero bits. The more difficult cases concern literals with rounding in approximate FP semantics, since a significant error emerges when the literal is reinterpreted using higherprecision FP numbers. A useful optimization is special treatment of equalities \(x=t\) in which one side is a variable x not assigned in \(\beta \), and all righthand side variables are assigned. In this case, the choice \(\beta (x) := val _{\hat{m}, \beta \uparrow h}(t)\) will satisfy the equation. Use of this heuristic partly mitigates the negative impact of rounding in approximate FP semantics, since the errors originating in the \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\) will not be present in \((m,\beta )\). The heuristic is not specific to the floatingpoint theory, and can be carried over to other theories as well.
Example 2
— Model reconstruction. In order to illustrate how precise model reconstruction works, recall the formula obtained in Example 1. We fix the number of PI controller loop iterations to \(N = 1\), but for reasons of presentation slightly change the values of the constants to \( Ki = 0.125\), \( Kp = 1.25\), and \( set\_point = 3.0\). Suppose further that the rounding mode is set to \( RoundTowardZero \), and that the property to be checked is the following: if \( 2.0 \le in_{o} \le 4.0\) then \(1.0 \le out_{1} \le 1.0\). Approximate model construction is performed with the precision assignment \(\gamma \) that maps all precision variables \(p_0, p_1, \ldots , p_8\) to 0, i.e., all computations are performed in the smallest floatingpoint domain \( FP _{3,3}\).
The columns in Table 2 represent, respectively, the variables in the formula, the terms those variables are assigned, their value in the model of the approximation \(\hat{\beta }\) and their value in the reconstructed model \(\beta \) . The variables in the table are topologically sorted, i.e., their order corresponds to the order of computation in the program, which allows propagation of the rounding error through the formula by interpreting equality as assignment when possible. Before proceeding to model reconstruction, the reader should note that evaluation under the given model \(\hat{\beta }\) occurs without rounding, except for the value of \( out _1\), almost meeting the conditions of Lemma 3 and Theorem 1. The exact value of \( out _1\) cannot be represented in \( FP _{3,3}\) because \(1.375 = 1.011 \times 2^{0}\) which requires 4 significant bits. Since there are only 3 significant bits available, the value is rounded according to the rounding mode \( rm \) (bold in Table 2). The given model indeed violates the desired property under \(I_{3,3}\). The procedure constructs the model \(\beta \), by evaluating the expressions using the interpretation function \(I_{53,11}\). Initially, there are no values in \(\beta \), so it is populated with values of variables that depend only on constants, cast up to the sort \( FP _{53,11}\). Next it proceeds to variables whose value depends on other variables. Since the order is topological, when there are no cycles (like in this example) all the values needed for evaluation are already available in \(\beta \). The missing values in \(\beta \) are computed by reevaluating the terms assigned to each variable using values of variables already in \(\beta \). Since all the variables except \(out_1\) are exact (in the sense that no rounding occurred), then by Lemma 3, their values in \(\beta \) and \(\hat{\beta }\) are (numerically) equal. In the case of \(out_1\), however, there is a discrepancy between the two values. As there are no cyclic dependencies we can use the more precise value obtained using \(I_{53,11}\). In general, the constructed model \(\beta \) has to be checked against the constraints, because reconstruction is not guaranteed to succeed. In this example however, the reconstructed \(\beta \) is indeed a satisfying assignment for the formula in question.
Model reconstruction from \( FP _{3,3}\) to \( FP _{53,11}\)
Variable  Defining term  \(\hat{\beta }(x)\)  \(\beta (x)\) 

\( Kp \)  1.25  1.25  1.25 
\( Ki \)  0.125  0.125  0.125 
\( set\_point \)  3.0  3.0  3.0 
\( in_0 \)  4.0  4.0  
\( error _1\)  \( set\_point \ominus _{ rm } in _0\)  1.0  1.0 
\( integral _1\)  \( integral _{ init } \oplus _{ rm } error _1\)  1.0  1.0 
\( aux _a\)  \( Kp \odot _{ rm } error _1\)  1.25  1.25 
\( aux _b\)  \( Ki \odot _{ rm } error _1\)  0.125  0.125 
\( out _1\)  \( aux _a \oplus _{ rm } aux _b\)  1.25  1.375 
5.3 Approximation Refinement
The overall goal of the refinement scheme outlined in Fig. 2 is to find a model of the original constraints using a series of approximations defined by precision assignments \(\gamma \). We usually want \(\gamma \) to be as small as possible in the partial order of precision assignments, since approximations with lower precision can be solved more efficiently. During refinement, the precision assignment is adjusted so that the approximation of the problem in the next iteration is closer to full semantics. Intuitively, this increase in precision should be kept as small as possible, but as large as necessary. Note that two different refinement procedures are required, depending on whether an approximation is satisfiable or not. We refer to these procedures as Model and Proofguided Approximation Refinement, respectively.
5.3.1 Modelguided Approximation Refinement
If a model \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\) of \(\hat{\phi }\) is obtained together with a reconstructed model \((m,\beta )\) that does not satisfy \(\phi \), we use the procedure described in Algorithm 3 for adjusting \(\gamma \). Since the model reconstruction failed, there are literals in \(\hat{\phi }\) which are critical for \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\), in the sense that they are satisfied by \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\) and required to satisfy \({\hat{\phi }}\), but are not satisfied by \((m,\beta )\). Such literals can be identified through evaluation with both \({(\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })}\) and \((m,\beta )\) (as part of Algorithm 3 via extract_critical_literals), and can then be traversed, evaluating each subterm under both structures. If a term \(g(c_l,\bar{t})\) is assigned different values in the two models, it witnesses discrepancies between precise and approximate semantics; in this case, an error is computed using the error function, mapping to some suitably defined error domain (e.g., the real numbers \(\mathbb {R}\) for errors represented numerically). The computed errors are then used to select those operations whose precision argument \(c_l\) should be assigned a higher value.
Depending on refinement criteria, the rank_terms function can be implemented in different ways. For example, terms can be ordered according to the absolute error which was calculated earlier; if there are too many terms to refine, only a certain number of them will be selected for refinement. An example of a more complex criterion follows:
Applied to FPAThe only difference to the general case is that we define relative error \(\delta (c_l)\) to be \(+\infty \) if a special value (\(\pm \infty \), NaN) from \((\hat{m}, \hat{\beta })\) turns into a normal value under \((m,\beta )\). Our rank_terms function ignores terms which have an infinite average relative error of subterms. The refinement strategy will prioritize the terms which introduce the largest error, but in the case of special values it will refine the first imprecise terms that are encountered (in bottom up evaluation), because once the special values occur as input error to a term we have no way to estimate its actual error. After ranking the terms using the described criteria, rank_terms returns the top \(30\%\) highest ranked terms. The precision of chosen terms is increased by a constant value.
5.3.2 ProofGuided Approximation Refinement
When no approximate model can be found, some theory solvers may still provide valuable information why the problem could not be satisfied; for instance, proofs of unsatisfiability or unsatisfiable cores. While it may be (computationally) hard to determine which variables absolutely need to be refined in this case (and by how much), in many cases a loose estimate is easy to compute. For instance, a simple solution is to increase the precision of all variables appearing in the literals of an unsatisfiable core.
Given an unsatisfiable formula \(\phi \) in conjunctive normal form (CNF), any unsatisfiable formula \(\psi \) that is a conjunction of a subset of clauses in \(\phi \) is called an unsatisfiable core. If a core \(\psi \) has no proper subformula that is unsatisfiable, it is said to be a minimal unsatisfiable core. Given an unsatisfiable formula \(\psi \) any formula \(\phi \) that contains \(\psi \) is also unsatisfiable, since \(\psi \) is an unsatisfiable core of \(\phi \) in that case. Generalizing this observation to our approximation theory \(\hat{T}\) we get the following lemma:
Lemma 4
If \(\psi \) is the unsatisfiable core of the lifted formula \(\hat{\phi }\) under precision assignment \(\gamma \) and all precision variables occurring in \(\psi \) have maximal precision, i.e., \(\gamma (x)=\omega \) for all \(x \in X \cap vars (\psi )\), then formula \(\phi \) is unsatisfiable.
The proofguided refinement is shown in Algorithm 4. Lemma 4 provides a cheap stopping condition for proofguided refinement. If the found core is at full precision (i.e., was obtained under the exact semantics), then regardless of precision of other constraints the original formula \(\phi \) is guaranteed to be unsatisfiable. However, this is rarely the case (a number of refinement steps is necessary for precision variables to reach value \(\omega \)). Ideally the procedure would get a minimal core \(\psi \) and it would be considerably smaller than the original constraint \(\phi \). In that case, a satisfiability check of \(\psi \) with all the terms at full precision (i.e., \(\omega \)) is likely to be easier than a satisfiability check of \(\phi \). In the case the \(\psi \) is an unsatisfiable core of \(\phi \), this is discovered by solving a considerably smaller formula. If \(\psi \) is not an unsatisfiable core of \(\phi \), then its discovery is due to encoding at small precision, and once encoded at full precision, the search space is going to be expanded enough that the satisfiability check of \(\psi \) is likely to be quick.
If the approximation theory uses a domain with the inclusion property and multiple iterations yield unsatisfiable approximations of the formula \(\phi \) then the same solution space is explored repeatedly. Subsequent unsatisfiable iterations are undesirable due to the fact that every previous call is subsumed by the latest one, increasing the solving time unnecessarily. In the case when the approximation theory is FPA, this can be easily avoided by introducing blocking clauses. Between any two iterations, at least one variable had its precision increased, which means that after bitblasting its encoding will contain additional variables. Since the domain satisfies the inclusion property, that means that all the newly introduced variables implicitly had value false in the previous iterations. If the approximation of the previous iteration was unsatisfiable, a single clause can be added to prevent revisiting that subspace. The blocking clause expresses that at least one of the newly introduced variables has to be true (i.e., nonzero).
6 Experimental Evaluation
To assess the efficacy of our method, we present results of an experimental evaluation obtained through an implementation of the approximation using smaller floatingpoint numbers (the ‘Smallfloat’ approximation) . We implemented this approach as a custom tactic [23] within the Z3 theorem prover [22]. All experiments were performed on Intel Xeon 2.5 GHz machines with a time limit of 1200 sec and a memory limit of 2 GB. The symbols Open image in new window and Open image in new window indicate that the time or the memory limit were exceeded.
Implementation details. For the sake of reproducibility of our experiments, we note that our implementation starts with an initial precision mapping \(\gamma \) that limits the precision of all floatingpoint operations to \(s = 3\) significant and \(e = 3\) exponent bits. Upon refinement, operations receive an increase in precision that represents 20% of the width of the full precision. We do not currently implement any sophisticated proofguided approximation refinement, but our prototype does feature corebased refinement as described in Sect. 5.3.2 and Algorithm 4.
Evaluation statistics
Z3 (Default)  MathSAT (Default)  MathSAT (ACDCL)  Smallfloat (no cores)  Smallfloat (Default)  

Satisfiable  86  95  77  91  92 
Unsatisfiable  59  67  76  53  64 
Total  145  162  153  144  159 
The results we obtain are briefly summarized in Table 3, which shows that our method solves more (satisfiable and unsatisfiable) instances than the ordinary bitblastingbased decision procedure in Z3. Our method solves roughly the same number of satisfiable and unsatisfiable problems as the default procedure based on bitblasting in MathSAT, and can handle significantly more satisfiable problems (but fewer unsatisfiable ones) than the ACDCLbased procedure in MathSAT. Few benchmarks are solved by only one solver and they are solved by the best performing solver in their respective category.
Comparison of solver performance on unsatisfiable benchmarks; each entry indicates the number of benchmarks which the approach in the row solves faster than the approach in the column
Z3 (default)  MathSAT (default)  MathSAT (ACDCL)  Smallfloat (no cores)  Smallfloat  

Z3 (default)  –  14  15  59  29 
MathSAT (default)  56  –  18  64  52 
MathSAT (ACDCL)  73  71  –  75  74 
Smallfloat (no cores)  0  5  12  –  2 
Smallfloat  35  18  12  62  – 
To evaluate the performance of the proofguided approximation refinement using unsatisfiable cores, we the compare all techniques on the unsatisfiable subset of the benchmarks. Table 4 indicates the numbers of benchmarks on which one approach (the row) performs better (solves vs did not solve, or solves faster) than another approach (the column). Both versions of MathSAT perform much better than the other solvers, which is expected. Of particular interest are the two versions of Smallfloat approximation, since they show the impact of corebased refinement on solving. We can see that Smallfloat, featuring corebased refinement, solves 62 benchmarks faster than Smallfloat (no cores), while it is slower on only two instances. This indicates that corebased refinement offers a substantial improvement over the basic proofguided refinement. Furthermore, by comparing Smallfloat approximation to Z3 (Default), which is the underlying procedure used by both versions of Smallfloat, we can see that it is faster on 37 instances, whereas Smallfloat (no cores) did not outperform Z3 (Default) on any of the benchmarks. We can conclude that, at least on this benchmark set, the core based refinement offers significant improvement to performance of the approximation framework. It not only improves runtime performance on almost all the benchmarks, it also bridges the gap in performance that is incurred by the approximation framework on more than half of the solved benchmarks.
Overall, it can be observed that our approximation method leads to significant improvements in solver performance, especially where satisfiable formulas are concerned. Our method exhibits complementary performance to the ACDCL procedure in MathSAT; one of the aspects to be investigated in future work is a possible combination of the two methods, using an ACDCL solver to solve the constraints obtained through approximation with our procedure.
7 Conclusion
We present a general method for efficient model construction through the use of approximations. By computing a model of a formula interpreted in suitably approximated semantics, followed by reconstruction of a genuine model in the original semantics, scalability of existing decision procedures is improved for complex background theories. Our method uses a refinement procedure to increase the precision of the approximation on demand. Finally, we show that an instantiation of our framework for floatingpoint arithmetic shows promising results in practice and often outperforms stateoftheart solvers.
While our prototype exhibits satisfactory performance on unsatisfiable problems, we believe that more work is needed in this area, and that further speedups are possible. Furthermore, other background theories need to be investigated, and custom approximation schemes for them be defined. It is also possible to solve approximations with different precision assignments or background theories in parallel, and to use the refinement information from multiple models (or proofs) simultaneously. Increases in precision may then be adjusted based on differences in precision between models, or depending on the runtime required to solve each of the approximations.
Notes
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Alberto Griggio for assistance with MathSAT and help with the benchmarks in our experiments, as well as the anonymous referees for insightful comments. This work was partly supported by the Swedish Research Council.
References
 1.Boldo, S., Filliâtre, J.C., Melquiond, G.: Combining Coq and Gappa for certifying floatingpoint programs. In: Intelligent Computer Mathematics (Calculemus); MKM/CICM. LNCS, vol. 5625. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
 2.Brain, M., D’Silva, V., Griggio, A., Haller, L., Kroening, D.: Deciding floatingpoint logic with abstract conflict driven clause learning. FMSD 45(2), 213–245 (2013)Google Scholar
 3.Brillout, A., Kroening, D., Wahl, T.: Mixed abstractions for floatingpoint arithmetic. In: FMCAD. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
 4.Brummayer, R., Biere, A.: Effective bitwidth and underapproximation. In: EUROCAST. LNCS, vol. 5717. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
 5.Bryant, R.E., Kroening, D., Ouaknine, J., Seshia, S.A., Strichman, O., Brady, B.A.: Deciding bitvector arithmetic with abstraction. In: TACAS. LNCS, vol. 4424. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
 6.Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Schaafsma, B.J., Sebastiani, R.: The MathSAT5 SMT solver. In: TACAS. LNCS, vol. 7795. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
 7.Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexampleguided abstraction refinement. In: CAV. LNCS, vol. 1855. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
 8.Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Miné, A., Monniaux, D., Rival, X.: The ASTREÉ analyzer. In: ESOP. LNCS, vol. 3444. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
 9.Daumas, M., Melquiond, G.: Certification of bounds on expressions involving rounded operators. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 37(1) (2010). doi: 10.1145/1644001.1644003
 10.D’Silva, V., Haller, L., Kroening, D.: Abstract conflict driven learning. In: POPL. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
 11.D’Silva, V., Haller, L., Kroening, D., Tautschnig, M.: Numeric bounds analysis with conflictdriven learning. In: TACAS. LNCS, vol. 7214. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
 12.Gao, S., Kong, S., Clarke, E.M.: dReal: an SMT solver for nonlinear theories over the reals. In: CADE. LNCS, vol. 7898. Springer, Belin (2013)Google Scholar
 13.Ge, Y., de Moura, L.: Complete instantiation for quantified formulas in satisfiability modulo theories. In: CAV. LNCS, vol. 5643. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
 14.Giunchiglia, F., Walsh, T.: A theory of abstraction. Artif. Intell. 57(2–3), 323–389 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 15.Harrison, J.: Floating point verification in HOL light: the exponential function. TR 428, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (1997)Google Scholar
 16.Harrison, J.: Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 17.IEEE Comp. Soc.: IEEE Standard for FloatingPoint Arithmetic 7542008 (2008)Google Scholar
 18.Janota, M., Klieber, W., MarquesSilva, J., Clarke, E.: Solving QBF with counterexample guided refinement. In: SAT. LNCS, vol. 7317. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
 19.Khanh, T.V., Ogawa, M.: SMT for polynomial constraints on real numbers. In: Jeannet, B. (ed.) TAPAS. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 289. Elsevier (2012)Google Scholar
 20.Peleska, J.,Vorobev, E., Lapschies, F.: Automated test case generation with SMTsolving and abstract interpretation. In: NASA formal methods  third international symposium, NFM 2011, Pasadena, CA, USA, April 18–20, 2011. Proceedings Springer (2011)Google Scholar
 21.Melquiond, G.: Floatingpoint arithmetic in the Coq system. In: Conference on Real Numbers and Computers. Information & Computation, vol. 216. Elsevier (2012)Google Scholar
 22.de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: TACAS. LNCS, vol. 4963. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
 23.de Moura, L., Passmore, G.O.: The strategy challenge in SMT solving. In: Automated Reasoning and Mathematics. LNCS, vol. 7788. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.