Advertisement

Exploring Theories with a Model-Finding Assistant

  • Salman SaghafiEmail author
  • Ryan Danas
  • Daniel J. Dougherty
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9195)

Abstract

We present an approach to understanding first-order theories by exploring their models. A typical use case is the analysis of artifacts such as policies, protocols, configurations, and software designs. For the analyses we offer, users are not required to frame formal properties or construct derivations. Rather, they can explore examples of their designs, confirming the expected instances and perhaps recognizing bugs inherent in surprising instances.

Key foundational ideas include: the information preorder on models given by homomorphism, an inductively-defined refinement of the Herbrand base of a theory, and a notion of provenance for elements and facts in models. The implementation makes use of SMT-solving and an algorithm for minimization with respect to the information preorder on models.

Our approach is embodied in a tool, Razor, that is complete for finite satisfiability and provides a read-eval-print loop used to navigate the set of finite models of a theory and to display provenance.

Keywords

Minimal Model Geometric Form Finite Model Existential Quantifier Ground Instance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We benefitted from discussions with Henning Günther, Joshua Guttman, Daniel Jackson, Shriram Krishnaturthi, Tim Nelson, and John Ramsdell. The name of our tool is homage to Ockham’s Razor (William of Occam 1285–1349): “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang, J., Zhang, H.: SEM: a system for enumerating models. In: International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCune, W.: MACE 2.0 Reference Manual and Guide. CoRR (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Claessen, K., Sörensson, N.: New techniques that improve MACE-Style finite model finding. In: CADE Workshop on Model Computation-Principles, Algorithms, Applications (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumgartner, P., Schmidt, R.A.: Blocking and other enhancements for bottom-up model generation methods. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 125–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Nivelle, H., Meng, J.: Geometric resolution: a proof procedure based on finite model search. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 303–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., De Nivelle, H., Tinelli, C.: Computing finite models by reduction to function-free clause logic. J. Appl. Logic 7(1), 58–74 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reynolds, A., Tinelli, C., Goel, A., Krstić, S.: Finite model finding in SMT. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 640–655. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Korovin, K., Sticksel, C.: iProver-Eq: an instantiation-based theorem prover with equality. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6173, pp. 196–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bry, F., Torge, S.: A deduction method complete for refutation and finite satisfiability. In: Dix, J., Fariñas del Cerro, L., Furbach, U. (eds.) JELIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1489, pp. 122–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baumgartner, P., Suchanek, F.M.: Automated reasoning support for first-order ontologies. In: Alferes, J.J., Bailey, J., May, W., Schwertel, U. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions, 2nd edn. MIT Press, London (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., Meyerovich, L.A., Tschantz, M.C.: Verification and change-impact analysis of access-control policies. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson, T., Barratt, C., Dougherty, D.J., Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S.: The margrave tool for firewall analysis. In: USENIX Large Installation System Administration Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niemelä, I.: A tableau calculus for minimal model reasoning. In: Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bry, F., Yahya, A.: Positive unit hyperresolution tableaux and their application to minimal model generation. J. Autom. Reasoning 25(1), 35–82 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson, T., Saghafi, S., Dougherty, D.J., Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S.: Aluminum: principled scenario exploration through minimality. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doghmi, S.F., Guttman, J.D., Thayer, F.J.: Searching for shapes in cryptographic protocols. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 523–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lopes, N., Bjorner, N., Godefroid, P., Jayaraman, K., Varghese, G.: Checking beliefs in dynamic networks. Technical report, Microsoft Research (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abramsky, S.: Domain theory in logical form. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 51, 1–77 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vickers, S.: Geometric logic as a specification language. In: Imperial College Department of Computing Workshop on Theory and Formal Methods (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sofronie-Stokkermans, V.: Sheaves and Geometric Logic and Applications to Modular Verification of Complex Systems. Electronic Notes on Theoretical Computer Science 230, 161–187 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bezem, M., Coquand, T.: Automating coherent logic. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 246–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maier, D., Mendelzon, A.O., Sagiv, Y.: Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, 445–469 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: A proof procedure for data dependencies. J. ACM 31(4), 718–741 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deutsch, A., Tannen, V.: XML queries and constraints, containment and reformulation. ACM Symposium on Theory Computer Science (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rossman, B.: Existential positive types and preservation under homomorphisms. In: IEEE Logic in Computer Science. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Makkai, M., Reyes, G.E.: First Order Categorical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: semantics and query answering. In: Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Motwani, R. (eds.) ICDT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2572, pp. 207–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deutsch, A., Nash, A., Remmel, J.: The chase revisited. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dougherty, D.J., Guttman, J.D.: Decidability for lightweight Diffie-Hellman protocols. In: IEEE Symposium on Computer Security Foundations, pp. 217–231 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saghafi, S., Dougherty, D.J.: Razor: provenance and exploration in model-finding. In: 4th Workshop on Practical Aspects of Automated Reasoning (PAAR) (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure: The FOF and CNF parts, v3.5.0. J. Autom. Reasoning 43(4), 337–362 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nelson, T., Ferguson, A.D., Scheer, M., Krishnamurthi, S.: Tierless programming and reasoning for software-defined networks. NSDI, April (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salman Saghafi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ryan Danas
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Dougherty
    • 1
  1. 1.Worcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations