Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 313–339 | Cite as

Combining SAT Solvers with Computer Algebra Systems to Verify Combinatorial Conjectures

  • Edward Zulkoski
  • Curtis Bright
  • Albert Heinle
  • Ilias Kotsireas
  • Krzysztof Czarnecki
  • Vijay Ganesh
Article
  • 186 Downloads

Abstract

We present a method and an associated system, called MathCheck, that embeds the functionality of a computer algebra system (CAS) within the inner loop of a conflict-driven clause-learning SAT solver. SAT+CAS systems, à la MathCheck, can be used as an assistant by mathematicians to either find counterexamples or finitely verify open universal conjectures on any mathematical topic (e.g., graph and number theory, algebra, geometry, etc.) supported by the underlying CAS. Such a SAT+CAS system combines the efficient search routines of modern SAT solvers, with the expressive power of CAS, thus complementing both. The key insight behind the power of the SAT+CAS combination is that the CAS system can help cut down the search-space of the SAT solver, by providing learned clauses that encode theory-specific lemmas, as it searches for a counterexample to the input conjecture (just like the T in DPLL (T)). In addition, the combination enables a more efficient encoding of problems than a pure Boolean representation. In this paper, we leverage the capabilities of several different CAS, namely the SAGE, Maple, and Magma systems. As case studies, we study three long-standing open mathematical conjectures, two from graph theory regarding properties of hypercubes, and one from combinatorics about Hadamard matrices. The first conjecture states that any matching of any d-dimensional hypercube can be extended to a Hamiltonian cycle; the second states that given an edge-antipodal coloring of a hypercube there always exists a monochromatic path between two antipodal vertices; the third states that Hadamard matrices exist for all orders divisible by 4. Previous results on the graph theory conjectures have shown the conjectures true up to certain low-dimensional hypercubes, and attempts to extend them have failed until now. Using our SAT+CAS system, MathCheck, we extend these two conjectures to higher-dimensional hypercubes. Regarding Hadamard matrices, we demonstrate the advantages of SAT+CAS by constructing Williamson matrices up to order 42 (equivalently, Hadamard up to order \(4\times 42=168\)), improving the bounds up to which Williamson matrices of even order have been constructed. Prior state-of-the-art construction was only feasibly performed for odd numbers, where possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Aloul, F.A. Markov, I.L. Sakallah, K.A.: Shatter: efficient symmetry-breaking for boolean satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 836–839. ACM, (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Areces, C., Déharbe, D., Pascal, F., Ezequiel, O.: SyMT: finding symmetries in SMT formulas. In: SMT Workshop 2013 11th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories, (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. IJCAI 9, 399–404 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett, C., Conway, C.L., Deters, M., Hadarean, L., Jovanović, D., King, T., Reynolds, A.: CVC4. In: Gopalakrishnan, Ganesh, Qadeer, Shaz (eds.) Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6806, pp. 171–177. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayless, S., Bayless, N., Hoos, H.H., Hu, A.J.: SAT modulo monotonic theories. In: Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benhamou, B., Nabhani, T., Ostrowski, R., Saïdi, M.R.: Enhancing clause learning by symmetry in SAT solvers. In: 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), 2010, vol. 1, pp. 329–335. IEEE, (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of satisfiability, volume 185 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosma, W., Cannon, J., Playoust, C.: The magma algebra system I: the user language. J. Symb. Comput. 24(3), 235–265 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouton, T., de Oliveira, D.C.B., Déharbe, D.: veriT: an open, trustable and efficient SMT-solver. In: Schmidt, R.A. (ed.) Automated Deduction: CADE-22. LNCS, vol. 5663, pp. 151–156. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bright, C., Ganesh, V., Heinle, A., Kotsireas, l., Nejati, S., Czarnecki, K.: MathCheck2: A SAT+CAS verifier for combinatorial conjectures. In: Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing (to appear). Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Char, B.W., Fee, G.J., Geddes, K.O., Gonnet, G.H., Monagan, Michael B.: A tutorial introduction to Maple. J. Symb. Comput. 2(2), 179–200 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, Y.-C., Li, K.-L.: Matchings extend to perfect matchings on hypercube networks. In: Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, vol. 1. Citeseer, (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colbourn, C.J., Dinitz, J.H. (eds.): Handbook of Combinatorial Designs. Discrete Mathematics and its Applications (Boca Raton), 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Darga, P.T., Sakallah, K.A., Markov, I.L.: Faster symmetry discovery using sparsity of symmetries. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 149–154. ACM, (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 337–340. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Déharbe, D., Fontaine, P., Merz, S., Paleo, B.W.: Exploiting symmetry in SMT problems. In: Automated deduction–CADE-23, pp. 222–236. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Devos, S., Norine, M.: Edge-antipodal colorings of cubes. Open Problems Garden (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dooms, G., Deville, Y., Dupont, P.: CP(Graph): introducing a graph computation domain in constraint programming. In: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP 2005, pp. 211–225. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Fundamentals of parameterized complexity, vol. 4. Springer, London (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Een, N., Sörensson, N.: MiniSat: a SAT solver with conflict-clause minimization. Sat, 5:8th, (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feder, T.: Subi, Carlos: On hypercube labellings and antipodal monochromatic paths. Discrete Appl. Math. 161(10), 1421–1426 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fink, J.: Perfect matchings extend to Hamilton cycles in hypercubes. J. Comb. Theory Ser. B 97(6), 1074–1076 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fink, J.: Connectivity of matching graph of hypercube. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 23(2), 1100–1109 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frigo, M., Johnson, S.G.: The design and implementation of FFTW3. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, 93(2):216–231, (2005). Special issue on “Program Generation, Optimization, and Platform Adaptation”Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ganesh, V., Dill, D.L.: A decision procedure for bit-vectors and arrays. In: Computer Aided Verification, pp. 519–531. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ganesh, V., O’donnell, C.W., Soos, M., Devadas, S., Rinard, M.C., Solar-Lezama, A.: Lynx: A programmatic SAT solver for the RNA-folding problem. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing–SAT 2012, pp. 143–156. Springer, (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gebser, M., Janhunen, T., Rintanen, J.: SAT modulo graphs: Acyclicity. In: Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 137–151. Springer, (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gent, I.P., Petrie, K.E., Puget, J.F.: Symmetry in constraint programming. Handbook of constraint programming, pp. 329–376, (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gent, I., Smith, P.: Symmetry breaking during search in constraint programming. Citeseer, Barbara (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gregor, P.: Perfect matchings extending on subcubes to Hamiltonian cycles of hypercubes. Discrete Math. 309(6), 1711–1713 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hadamard, J.: Résolution d’une question relative aux déterminants. Bull. Sci. Math. 17(1), 240–246 (1893)MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hedayat, A., Wallis, W.D.: Hadamard matrices and their applications. Ann. Stat. 6(6), 1184–1238 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heule, M.J.H., Hunt, W.A., Wetzler, N.: Trimming while checking clausal proofs. In: Formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), 2013, pp. 181–188. IEEE, (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O., Marek, V.W.: Solving and verifying the boolean pythagorean triples problem via cube-and-conquer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.00723, (2016)
  35. 35.
    Holm, J., de Lichtenberg, K., Thorup, M.: Poly-logarithmic deterministic fully-dynamic algorithms for connectivity, minimum spanning tree, 2-edge, and biconnectivity. J. ACM 48(4), 723–760 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Junttila, T., Kaski, P.: Engineering an efficient canonical labeling tool for large and sparse graphs. In: Applegate, D., Brodal, G.S., Panario, D., Sedgewick, R (eds) Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments and the Fourth Workshop on Analytic Algorithms and Combinatorics, pp. 135–149. SIAM, (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Konev, B., Lisitsa, A.: A SAT attack on the Erdős discrepancy conjecture. In: SAT, (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kotsireas, I.S.: Algorithms and Metaheuristics for Combinatorial Matrices. In: Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 283–309. Springer, New York, (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kotsireas, I.S., Koukouvinos, C., Seberry, J.: Hadamard ideals and Hadamard matrices with two circulant core. Eur. J. Comb. 27(5), 658–668 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Koukouvinos, C., Kounias, S.: Hadamard matrices of the Williamson type of order \(4\cdot m\), \(m=p\cdot q\) an exhaustive search for \(m=33\). Discrete Math 68(1), 45–57 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Poupart, P., Czarnecki, K.: Exponential recency weighted average branching heuristic for SAT solvers. In: Schuurmans, D., Wellman, M.P. (eds), Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12–17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA., pp. 3434–3440. AAAI Press, (2016)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lifschitz, V.: What is answer set programming? AAAI 8, 1594–1597 (2008)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Milicevic, A., Near, J.P., Kang, E., Jackson, D.: Alloy*: a general-purpose higher-order relational constraint solver. In: 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24, 2015, Vol. 1, pp. 609–619, (2015)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Muller, D.E.: Application of Boolean algebra to switching circuit design and to error detection. Electronic Computers, Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Electronic Computers, EC-3(3):6–12, (1954)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Abstract DPLL and abstract DPLL modulo theories. In: Baader F., Voronkov A. (eds.) LPAR, volume 3452 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 36–50. Springer, (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: a proof assistant for higher-order logic, vol. 2283. Springer Science & Business Media, (2002)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Doković, D.Z.: Williamson matrices of order 4n for n = 33, 35, 39. Discrete Math. 115(1), 267–271 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Doković, D.Z., Kotsireas, I.S.: Compression of periodic complementary sequences and applications. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 74(2), 365–377 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Paley, R.E.A.C.: On orthogonal matrices. J. Math. Phys. 12(1), 311–320 (1933)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Reed, I.: A class of multiple-error-correcting codes and the decoding scheme. Trans. IRE Prof. Group Inf. Theory 4(4), 38–49 (1954)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ruskey, F., Savage, C.: Hamilton cycles that extend transposition matchings in Cayley graphs of \({S}_n\). SIAM J. Discrete Math. 6(1), 152–166 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sakallah, K.A.: Symmetry and satisfiability. Handb. Satisf. 185, 289–338 (2009)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sebastiani, R.: Lazy satisfiability modulo theories. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. 3, 141–224 (2007)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seberry, J.: Library of Williamson Matrices. http://www.uow.edu.au/~jennie/WILLIAMSON/williamson.html
  56. 56.
    Sloane, N.: Library of Hadamard Matrices. http://neilsloane.com/hadamard/
  57. 57.
    Soh, T., Le Berre, D., Roussel, S., Banbara, M., Tamura, N.: Incremental SAT-based method with native Boolean cardinality handling for the Hamiltonian cycle problem. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 684–693. Springer, (2014)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stein, W.A., et al.: Sage Mathematics Software (Version 6.3), (2010)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sylvester, J.J.: Thoughts on inverse orthogonal matrices, simultaneous sign successions, and tessellated pavements in two or more colours, with applications to Newton’s rule, ornamental tile-work, and the theory of numbers. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Magaz. J. Sci. 34(232), 461–475 (1867)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    The Coq development team. The Coq proof assistant reference manual. LogiCal Project, 2004. Version 8.0Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thurley, M.: sharpSAT–counting models with advanced component caching and implicit BCP. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing–SAT 2006, pp. 424–429. Springer, (2006)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Torlak, E.: A constraint solver for software engineering: finding models and cores of large relational specifications. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2009)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Velev, M.N., Gao, P.: Efficient SAT techniques for absolute encoding of permutation problems: Application to Hamiltonian cycles. In SARA, (2009)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Walsh, J.L.: A closed set of normal orthogonal functions. Am. J. Math. 45(1), 5–24 (1923)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stéfan van der Walt, S., Colbert, C., Varoquaux, G.: The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation. Comput. Sci. Eng. 13(2), 22–30 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wetzler, N., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr, W.A.: DRAT-trim: Efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pp. 422–429. Springer, (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Williamson, J.: Hadamard’s determinant theorem and the sum of four squares. Duke Math. J 11(1), 65–81 (1944)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wolfram, S.: The Mathematica Book, version 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zulkoski, E., Ganesh, V.: SageSAT, (2015) https://bitbucket.org/ezulkosk/sagesat
  70. 70.
    Zulkoski, E., Ganesh, V., Czarnecki, K.: MathCheck: A math assistant based on a combination of computer algebra systems and SAT solvers. In International Conference on Automated Deduction, Berlin, Germany, 08/2015. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations