Deciding Separation Formulas with SAT

  • Ofer Strichman
  • Sanjit A. Seshia
  • Randal E. Bryant
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2404)

Abstract

We show a reduction to propositional logic from a Boolean combination of inequalities of the form vivj + c and vi > vj + c, where c is a constant and vi, vj are variables of type real or integer. Equalities and uninterpreted functions can be expressed in this logic as well. We discuss the advantages of using this reduction as compared to competing methods, and present experimental results that support our claims.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W. Ackermann. Solvable cases of the Decision Problem. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1954.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Barras, S. Boutin, C. Cornes, J. Courant, J. C. Filliatre, E. Giménez, H. Herbelin, G. Huet, C. Munoz, C. Murthy, C. Parent, C. Paulin, A. Saïbi, and B. Werner. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual-Version V6.1. Technical Report RT-0203, INRIA, August 1997. revised version distributed with Coq.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. J. C. Bik and H. A. G. Wijshoff. Implementation of Fourier-Motzkin elimination. Technical Report 94-42, Dept. of Computer Science, Leiden University, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Bryant, S. German, and M. Velev. Processor verification using efficient reductions of the logic of uninterpreted functions to propositional logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(1):1–41, 2001.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. E. Bryant, S. K. Lahiri, and S. A. Seshia. Modeling and verifying systems using a logic of counter arithmetic with lambda expressions and uninterpreted functions. In Proc. Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’02), July 2002. This volume.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Cormen, C. Leiserson, and L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms.MIT press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Møller, J. Lichtenberg, H. R. Andersen, and H. Hulgaard. Difference decision diagrams. In Proceedings 13th International Conference on Computer Science Logic, volume 83 of LNCS, pages 111–125, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proc. Design Automation Conference (DAC’01), 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Pratt. Two easy theories whose combination is hard. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute os Technology, 1977. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Shostak. Deciding linear inequalities by computing loop residues. J. ACM, 28(4):769–779, October 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Shostak. Deciding combinations of theories. J. ACM, 31(1):1–12, 1984.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Strichman. Optimizations in decision procedures for propositional linear inequalities. Technical Report CMU-CS-02-133, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Strichman, S. A. Seshia, and R. E. Bryant. Reducing separation formulas to propositional logic. Technical Report CMU-CS-02-132, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ofer Strichman
    • 1
  • Sanjit A. Seshia
    • 1
  • Randal E. Bryant
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations