Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving

ITP 2017: Interactive Theorem Proving pp 269–284Cite as

Efficient, Verified Checking of Propositional Proofs

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10499))

Abstract

Satisfiability (SAT) solvers—and software in general—sometimes have serious bugs. We mitigate these effects by validating the results. Today’s SAT solvers emit proofs that can be checked with reasonable efficiency. However, these checkers are not trivial and can have bugs as well. We propose to check proofs using a formally verified program that adds little overhead to the overall process of proof validation. We have implemented a sequence of increasingly efficient, verified checkers using the ACL2 theorem proving system, and we discuss lessons from this effort. This work is already being used in industry and is slated for use in the next SAT competition.

This work was supported by NSF under Grant No. CCF-1526760. We thank the reviewers for useful feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Checking a claim of satisfiability is easy.

  2. 2.

    “A Computational Logic for Applicative Common Lisp”.

  3. 3.

    More accurately, first is a macro expanding to a corresponding call of the function car, whose guard specifies that the argument is a pair or the empty list.

  4. 4.

    Thus, stobjs play a role somewhat like monads in higher-order functional languages.

  5. 5.

    http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/current/manual/.

  6. 6.

    https://github.com/acl2/acl2/tree/master/books/.

  7. 7.

    We used ACL2 GitHub commit 639ef8760d30a63e2f21e160cdf02b75e1154fcc and SBCL Version 1.3.15, on a 3.5 GHz Intel(R) Xeon(R) with 32 GB of memory running on Ubuntu Linux.

  8. 8.

    https://github.com/msoos/cryptominisat.

  9. 9.

    The hand proof may be found in a comment near the top of the book satisfiable-add-proof-clause.lisp (see for example community books directory projects/sat/list-based/). That informal proof is annotated with names of lemmas from the actual proof script.

  10. 10.

    The subsidiary correspondence theorems all state equivalences, so the suffix “-equiv” was used in the names of correspondence theorems, even though the top-level theorem, refutation-p-equiv, is actually an implication.

  11. 11.

    The mv-nth expression extracts the returned formula from a multiply-valued result.

  12. 12.

    projects/sat/lrat/incremental/print-formula.lisp in the community books.

References

  1. 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, vol. 9706, pp. 25–44. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyer, R.S., Moore J S.: Single-threaded objects in ACL2. In: Krishnamurthi, S., Ramakrishnan, C.R. (eds.) PADL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2257, pp. 9–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45587-6_3

  3. Cruz-Filipe, L., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A., Kaufmann, M., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Efficient certified RAT verification. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) CADE 2017. LNAI, vol. 10395, pp. 220–236. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM (JACM) 7(3), 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Greve, D.A., Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore J S., Ray, S., Ruiz-Reina, J.L., Sumners, R., Vroon, D., Wilding, M.: Efficient execution in an automated reasoning environment. J. Funct. Program. 18(1), 15–46 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Clausal proof compression. In: 11th International Workshop on the Implementation of Logics. EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 40, pp. 21–26 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A., Wetzler, N.D.: Trimming while checking clausal proofs. In: Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2013, Portland, OR, USA, 20–23 October 2013, pp. 181–188 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A., Wetzler, N.D.: Verifying refutations with extended resolution. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7898, pp. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Järvisalo, M., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Inprocessing rules. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7364, pp. 355–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31365-3_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore J S.: Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaufmann, M., Moore J S.: Rough diamond: an extension of equivalence-based rewriting. In: Klein, G., Gamboa, R. (eds.) ITP 2014. LNAI, vol. 8558, pp. 537–542. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08970-6_35

  14. Kaufmann, M.: Modular proof: the fundamental theorem of calculus. In: Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore J S. (eds.) Computer-Aided Reasoning: ACL2 Case Studies. Advances in Formal Methods, vol. 4, pp. 75–91. Springer, Boston (2000). doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3188-0_6

  15. Kaufmann, M., Moore J S.: ACL2 home page. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2. Accessed 2016

  16. Lammich, P.: Efficient verified (UN)SAT certificate checking. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) CADE 2017. LNAI, vol. 10395, pp. 237–254. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Lescuyer, S., Conchon, S.: A reflexive formalization of a SAT solver in Coq. In: International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs) (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Marić, F.: Formalization and implementation of modern SAT solvers. J. Autom. Reason. 43(1), 81–119 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Marić, F.: Formal verification of a modern SAT solver by shallow embedding into Isabelle/HOL. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(50), 4333–4356 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Marques-Silva, J.P., Lynce, I., Malik, S.: Conflict-driven clause learning SAT solvers. In: Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability, chap. 4, pp. 131–153. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. McCarthy, J.: Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine (part I). CACM 3(4), 184–195 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Oe, D., Stump, A., Oliver, C., Clancy, K.: versat: a verified modern SAT solver. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 363–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Shankar, N., Vaucher, M.: The mechanical verification of a DPLL-based satisfiability solver. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 269, 3–17 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Steele Jr., G.L.: Common Lisp the Language, 2nd edn. Digital Press, Burlington (1990)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Swords, S.: Private communication, March/April 2017

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilding, M.: Design goals for ACL2. Tech. Rep. CLI Technical Report 101, Computational Logic, Inc., August 1994. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/publications/km94.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Marijn Heule, Warren Hunt Jr. & Matt Kaufmann

  2. Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR, USA

    Nathan Wetzler

Authors
  1. Marijn Heule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Warren Hunt Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matt Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nathan Wetzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marijn Heule .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Brasília, Brasília D.F., Brazil

    Mauricio Ayala-Rincón

  2. NASA, Hampton, VA, USA

    César A. Muñoz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Heule, M., Hunt, W., Kaufmann, M., Wetzler, N. (2017). Efficient, Verified Checking of Propositional Proofs. In: Ayala-Rincón, M., Muñoz, C.A. (eds) Interactive Theorem Proving. ITP 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10499. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66107-0_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66107-0_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66106-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66107-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation