Solving Quantified Verification Conditions Using Satisfiability Modulo Theories

  • Yeting Ge
  • Clark Barrett
  • Cesare Tinelli
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4603)


First order logic provides a convenient formalism for describing a wide variety of verification conditions. Two main approaches to checking such conditions are pure first order automated theorem proving (ATP) and automated theorem proving based on satisfiability modulo theories (SMT). Traditional ATP systems are designed to handle quantifiers easily, but often have difficulty reasoning with respect to theories. SMT systems, on the other hand, have built-in support for many useful theories, but have a much more difficult time with quantifiers. One clue on how to get the best of both worlds can be found in the legacy system Simplify which combines built-in theory reasoning with quantifier instantiation heuristics. Inspired by Simplify and motivated by a desire to provide a competitive alternative to ATP systems, this paper describes a methodology for reasoning about quantifiers in SMT systems. We present the methodology in the context of the Abstract DPLL Modulo Theories framework. Besides adapting many of Simplify’s techniques, we also introduce a number of new heuristics. Most important is the notion of instantiation level which provides an effective mechanism for prioritizing and managing the large search space inherent in quantifier instantiation techniques. These techniques have been implemented in the SMT system CVC3. Experimental results show that our methodology enables CVC3 to solve a significant number of benchmarks that were not solvable with any previous approach.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Snyder, W.: Unification theory. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, ch. 8, vol. I, pp. 445–532. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett, C., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Splitting on demand in SAT Modulo Theories. Technical Report 06-05, Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa (August 2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett, C.W.: Checking Validity of Quantifier-Free Formulas in Combinations of First-Order Theories. PhD thesis, Stanford University (January 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett, C.W., Dill, D.L., Stump, A.: A generalization of Shostak’s method for combining decision procedures. In: Armando, A. (ed.) Frontiers of Combining Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2309, pp. 132–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Moura, L.: Private communication (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denney, E., Fischer, B., Schumann, J.: Using automated theorem provers to certify auto-generated aerospace software. In: Basin, D.A., Rusinowitch, M. (eds.) IJCAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3097, pp. 198–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detlefs, D., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking. J. ACM 52(3), 365–473 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flanagan, C., Joshi, R., Saxe, J.B.: An explicating theorem prover for quantified formulas. Technical Report HPL-2004-199, HP Intelligent Enterprise Technologies Laboratory (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Extended static checking for Java. In: Proc. ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 234–245 (June 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganzinger, H., Hagen, G., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: DPLL(T): Fast decision procedures. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 175–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: from an Abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland Procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prevosto, V., Waldmann, U.: SPASS+T. In: Sutcliffe, G., Schmidt, R., Schulz, S. (eds.) Proceedings of ESCoR: Empirically Successful Computerized Reasoning, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Seattle, WA, vol. 192, pp. 18–33 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ranise, S., Tinelli, C.: The satisfiability modulo theories library (SMT-LIB) (2006)
  14. 14.
    Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: The design and implementation of VAMPIRE. AI Commun. 15(2-3), 91–110 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stickel, M.E.: Automated deduction by theory resolution. Journal of Automated Reasoning 1(4), 333–355 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The IJCAR-2004 Automated Theorem Proving Competition. AI Communications 18(1), 33–40 (2005)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: The TPTP Problem Library: CNF Release v1.2.1. Journal of Automated Reasoning 21(2), 177–203 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weidenbach, C., Brahm, U., Hillenbrand, T., Keen, E., Theobald, C., Topic, D.: SPASS Version 2.0. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) Automated Deduction - CADE-18. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 275–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yeting Ge
    • 1
  • Clark Barrett
    • 1
  • Cesare Tinelli
    • 2
  1. 1.New York University 
  2. 2.The University of Iowa 

Personalised recommendations