E-Matching with Free Variables

  • Philipp Rümmer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7180)

Abstract

E-matching is the most commonly used technique to handle quantifiers in SMT solvers. It works by identifying characteristic sub-expressions of quantified formulae, named triggers, which are matched during proof search on ground terms to discover relevant instantiations of the quantified formula. E-matching has proven to be an efficient and practical approach to handle quantifiers, in particular because triggers can be provided by the user to guide proof search; however, as it is heuristic in nature, e-matching alone is typically insufficient to establish a complete proof procedure. In contrast, free variable methods in tableau-like calculi are more robust and give rise to complete procedures, e.g., for first-order logic, but are not comparable to e-matching in terms of scalability. This paper discusses how e-matching can be combined with free variable approaches, leading to calculi that enjoy similar completeness properties as pure free variable procedures, but in which it is still possible for a user to provide domain-specific triggers to improve performance.

Keywords

Free Variable Sequent Calculus Closed Formula Proof Search Linear Arithmetic 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Althaus, E., Kruglov, E., Weidenbach, C.: Superposition Modulo Linear Arithmetic SUP(LA). In: Ghilardi, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) FroCoS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5749, pp. 84–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H., Waldmann, U.: Refutational theorem proving for hierarchic first-order theories. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 5 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett, C.W., Tinelli, C.: CVC3. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 298–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., Tinelli, C.: ME(LIA) - Model Evolution with Linear Integer Arithmetic Constraints. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 258–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner, P., Tinelli, C.: Model Evolution with Equality Modulo Built-in Theories. In: Bjørner, N., Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. (eds.) CADE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6803, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z., Sipma, H.B.: What’s Decidable About Arrays? In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 427–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detlefs, D., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Simplify: A theorem prover for program checking. Journal of the ACM 52(3) (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ge, Y., Barrett, C.W., Tinelli, C.: Solving Quantified Verification Conditions Using Satisfiability Modulo Theories. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ge, Y., de Moura, L.: Complete Instantiation for Quantified Formulas in Satisfiabiliby Modulo Theories. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Presburger arithmetic with unary predicates is \(\Pi_1^1\) complete. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrison, J.: Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klebanov, V., Müller, P., Shankar, N., Leavens, G.T., Wüstholz, V., Alkassar, E., Arthan, R., Bronish, D., Chapman, R., Cohen, E., Hillebrand, M., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M., Monahan, R., Piessens, F., Polikarpova, N., Ridge, T., Smans, J., Tobies, S., Tuerk, T., Ulbrich, M., Weiß, B.: The 1st Verified Software Competition: Extended experience report (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korovin, K., Voronkov, A.: Integrating Linear Arithmetic into Superposition Calculus. In: Duparc, J., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CSL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4646, pp. 223–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manthey, R., Bry, F.: A hyperresolution-based proof procedure and its implementation in Prolog. In: GWAI, pp. 221–230. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manthey, R., Bry, F.: SATCHMO: A Theorem Prover Implemented in Prolog. In: Lusk, E., Overbeek, R. (eds.) CADE 1988. LNCS, vol. 310, pp. 415–434. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy, J.: Towards a mathematical science of computation. In: Popplewell, C.M. (ed.) Information Processing 1962, pp. 21–28. North-Holland (1963)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Engineering DPLL(T) + Saturation. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 475–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 183–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Nelson, G.: Techniques for program verification. Tech. Rep. CSL-81-10, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (1981)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Fast decision procedures based on congruence closure. J. ACM 27, 356–364 (1980)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rümmer, P.: Calculi for Program Incorrectness and Arithmetic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Gothenburg (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rümmer, P.: A Constraint Sequent Calculus for First-Order Logic with Linear Integer Arithmetic. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 274–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rümmer, P.: E-matching with free variables. Tech. rep (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stickel, M.E.: Automated deduction by theory resolution. Journal of Automated Reasoning 1(4), 333–355 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Rümmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUppsala UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations