Abstract
Many approaches for Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT \({\mathcal({T})})\) rely on the integration between a SAT solver and a decision procedure for sets of literals in the background theory \({\mathcal{T}} ({\mathcal{T}}-solver\)). When \({\mathcal{T}}\) is the combination \({{\mathcal{T}}_1\cup{\mathcal{T}}_2}\) of two simpler theories, the approach is typically handled by means of Nelson-Oppen’s (NO) theory combination schema in which two specific \({\mathcal{T}}\)-solver deduce and exchange (disjunctions of) interface equalities.
In recent papers we have proposed a new approach to \(({{\mathcal{T}}_1\cup{\mathcal{T}}_2})\), called Delayed Theory Combination (Dtc). Here part or all the (possibly very expensive) task of deducing interface equalities is played by the SAT solver itself, at the potential cost of an enlargement of the boolean search space. In principle this enlargement could be up to exponential in the number of interface equalities generated.
In this paper we show that this estimate was too pessimistic. We present a comparative analysis of Dtc vs. NO for SMT \(({{\mathcal{T}}_1\cup{\mathcal{T}}_2})\), which shows that, using state-of-the-art SAT-solving techniques, the amount of boolean branches performed by Dtc can be upper bounded by the number of deductions and boolean branches performed by NO on the same problem. We prove the result for different deduction capabilities of the \({\mathcal({T}-solver)}\) and for both convex and non-convex theories.
This work has been partly supported by ISAAC, an European sponsored project, contract no. AST3-CT-2003-501848, by ORCHID, a project sponsored by Provincia Autonoma di Trento, and by a grant from Intel Corporation.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armando, A., Castellini, C., Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: A SAT-Based Decision Procedure for the Boolean Combination of Difference Constraints. In: H. Hoos, H., Mitchell, D.G. (eds.) SAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3542, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Barrett, C.W., Berezin, S.: CVC Lite: A New Implementation of the Cooperating Validity Checker Category B. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 515–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Bozzano, M., Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Junttila, T.A., Ranise, S., van Rossum, P., Sebastiani, R.: Efficient Satisfiability Modulo Theories via Delayed Theory Combination. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 335–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Bozzano, M., Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Junttila, T.A., van Rossum, P., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R.: An Incremental and Layered Procedure for the Satisfiability of Linear Arithmetic Logic. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 317–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Bozzano, M., Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Junttila, T., van Rossum, P., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R.: MathSAT: A Tight Integration of SAT and Mathematical Decision Procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning (to appear, 2005)
Bozzano, M., Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Junttila, T., van Rossum, P., Ranise, S., Sebastiani, R.: Efficient Theory Combination via Boolean Search. Information and Computation (to appear, 2005)
Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Franzén, A., Griggio, A., Sebastiani, R.: Delayed Theory Combination vs. Nelson-Oppen for Satisfiability Modulo Theories: a Comparative Analysis. Technical Report DIT-06-032, DIT, University of Trento (2006), Available at: http://dit.unitn.it/~rseba/papers/lpar06_dtc_extended.pdf
Cotton, S., Asarin, E., Maler, O., Niebert, P.: Some Progress in Satisfiability Checking for Difference Logic. In: Proc. FORMATS-FTRTFT 2004 (2004)
Filliâtre, J.-C., Owre, S., Rueß, H., Shankar, N.: ICS: Integrated Canonizer and Solver. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 246–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
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)
Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by Cooperating Decision Procedures. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems 1(2), 245–257 (1979)
Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A.: Congruence Closure with Integer Offsets. In: Y. Vardi, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2850, pp. 77–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Shostak, R.E.: Deciding Combinations of Theories. Journal of the ACM 31, 1–12 (1984)
Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proc. ICCAD 2001. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: The quest for efficient boolean satisfiability solvers. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 17–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Franzén, A., Griggio, A., Sebastiani, R. (2006). Delayed Theory Combination vs. Nelson-Oppen for Satisfiability Modulo Theories: A Comparative Analysis. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4246. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11916277_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11916277_36
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-48281-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48282-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)