Efficient Certified RAT Verification

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
  • Marijn J. H. Heule
  • Warren A. HuntJr.
  • Matt Kaufmann
  • Peter Schneider-Kamp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10395)

Abstract

Clausal proofs have become a popular approach to validate the results of SAT solvers. However, validating clausal proofs in the most widely supported format (DRAT) is expensive even in highly optimized implementations. We present a new format, called LRAT, which extends the DRAT format with hints that facilitate a simple and fast validation algorithm. Checking validity of LRAT proofs can be implemented using trusted systems such as the languages supported by theorem provers. We demonstrate this by implementing two certified LRAT checkers, one in Coq and one in ACL2.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    ACL2 Community. ACL2 documentation topic: STOBJ. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/v7-2/manual/?topic=ACL2____STOBJ
  3. 3.
    ACL2 Community. ACL2 system and libraries on GitHub. https://github.com/acl2/acl2/
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Ivančić, F., Yang, Z., Ganai, M.K., Gupta, A., Ashar, P.: Efficient SAT-based bounded model checking for software verification. Theoretical Computer Science 404(3), 256–274 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balyo, T., Heule, M.J.H., Järvisalo, M.: Sat competition 2016: Recent developments. In: AAAI 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blanchette, J.C., Fleury, M., Weidenbach, C.: A verified SAT solver framework with learn, forget, restart, and incrementality. In: Olivetti, N., Tiwari, A. (eds.) IJCAR 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9706, pp. 25–44. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_4 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Copty, F., Fix, L., Fraer, R., Giunchiglia, E., Kamhi, G., Tacchella, A., Vardi, M.Y.: Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 436–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44585-4_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Coq proof assistant. https://coq.inria.fr/
  11. 11.
    Crawford, J., Ginsberg, M., Luks, E., Roy, A.: Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. In: \(KR\tilde{O}\) 1996, pp. 148–159. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Marques-Silva, J., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Efficient certified resolution proof checking. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10205, pp. 118–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54577-5_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Darbari, A., Fischer, B., Marques-Silva, J.: Industrial-strength certified SAT solving through verified SAT proof checking. In: Cavalcanti, A., Deharbe, D., Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) ICTAC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6255, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14808-8_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg, E.I., Novikov, Y.: Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In: DATE, pp. 10886–10891 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heule, M.J.H.: The DRAT format and DRAT-trim checker. CoRR, abs/1610.06229 (2016). Source code, https://github.com/marijnheule/drat-trim
  17. 17.
    Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Proofs for satisfiability problems. In: All about Proofs, Proofs for All (APPA), July 2014. http://www.easychair.org/smart-program/VSL2014/APPA-index.html
  18. 18.
    Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A., Wetzler, N.D.: Trimming while checking clausal proofs. In: FMCAD, pp. 181–188 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A., Wetzler, N.D.: Bridging the gap between easy generation and efficient verification of unsatisfiability proofs. Softw. Test., Verif. Reliab. 24(8), 593–607 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A., Wetzler, N.D.: Expressing symmetry breaking in DRAT proofs. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9195, pp. 591–606. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O., Marek, V.W.: Solving and verifying the boolean pythagorean triples problem via cube-and-conquer. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 228–245. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_15 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaufmann, M., Moore, J S.: An industrial strength theorem prover for a logic based on common LISP. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(4), 203–213 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lammich, P.: Efficient verified (UN)SAT certificate checking. In: CADE-26. LNCS. Springer (to appear, 2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Letouzey, P.: Extraction in Coq: an overview. In: Beckmann, A., Dimitracopoulos, C., Löwe, B. (eds.) CiE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5028, pp. 359–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69407-6_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manthey, N., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Automated reencoding of boolean formulas. In: Biere, A., Nahir, A., Vos, T. (eds.) HVC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7857, pp. 102–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39611-3_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maric, F.: Formal verification of a modern SAT solver by shallow embedding into Isabelle/HOL. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(50), 4333–4356 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maric, F., Janicic, P.: Formalization of abstract state transition systems for SAT. Logical Methods in Comput. Sci. 7(3) (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL - A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Gelder, A.: Producing and verifying extremely large propositional refutations - have your cake and eat it too. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 65(4), 329–372 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wetzler, N.D., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A.: Mechanical verification of SAT refutations with extended resolution. In: Blazy, S., Paulin-Mohring, C., Pichardie, D. (eds.) ITP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7998, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39634-2_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wetzler, N.D., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A.: DRAT-trim: efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 422–429. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_31 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: DATE, pp. 10880–10885 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
    • 1
  • Marijn J. H. Heule
    • 2
  • Warren A. HuntJr.
    • 2
  • Matt Kaufmann
    • 2
  • Peter Schneider-Kamp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations