Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polynomial-Time Validation of QCDCL Certificates

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2018 (SAT 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10929))

Abstract

Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs) offer compact encodings of problems arising in areas such as verification and synthesis. These applications require that QBF solvers not only decide whether an input formula is true or false but also output a witnessing certificate, i.e. a representation of the winning strategy. State-of-the-art QBF solvers based on Quantified Conflict-Driven Constraint Learning (QCDCL) can emit Q-resolution proofs, from which in turn such certificates can be extracted. The correctness of a certificate generated in this way is validated by substituting it into the matrix of the input QBF and using a SAT solver to check that the resulting propositional formula (the validation formula) is unsatisfiable. This final check is often the most time-consuming part of the entire certification workflow. We propose a new validation method that does not require a SAT call and provably runs in polynomial time. It uses the Q-resolution proof from which the given certificate was extracted to directly generate a (propositional) proof of the validation formula in the RUP format, which can be verified by a proof checker such as DRAT-trim. Experiments with a prototype implementation show a robust, albeit modest, increase in the number of successfully validated certificates compared to validation with a SAT solver.

This research was partially supported by FWF grants P27721 and W1255-N23.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We still have to make sure that the validation formula is constructed correctly so that it is not trivially unsatisfiable. We discuss this issue in Sect. 8.

References

  1. Balabanov, V., Jiang, J.R.: Unified QBF certification and its applications. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 41(1), 45–65 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balabanov, V., Jiang, J.R., Janota, M., Widl, M.: Efficient extraction of QBF (counter) models from long-distance resolution proofs. In: Bonet, B., Koenig, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 25–30 January 2015, Austin, Texas, USA, pp. 3694–3701. AAAI Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benedetti, M., Mangassarian, H.: QBF-based formal verification: experience and perspectives. J Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. 5(1–4), 133–191 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Lonsing, F., Biere, A.: Integrating dependency schemes in search-based QBF solvers. In: Strichman, O., Szeider, S. (eds.) SAT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6175, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14186-7_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bloem, R., Könighofer, R., Seidl, M.: SAT-based synthesis methods for safety specs. In: McMillan, K.L., Rival, X. (eds.) VMCAI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8318, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54013-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cadoli, M., Schaerf, M., Giovanardi, A., Giovanardi, M.: An algorithm to evaluate quantified boolean formulae and its experimental evaluation. J. Automat. Reason. 28(2), 101–142 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Cashmore, M., Fox, M., Giunchiglia, E.: Partially grounded planning as quantified boolean formula. In: Borrajo, D., Kambhampati, S., Oddi, A., Fratini, S. (eds.) 23rd International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2013. AAAI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Faymonville, P., Finkbeiner, B., Rabe, M.N., Tentrup, L.: Encodings of bounded synthesis. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10205, pp. 354–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54577-5_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Giunchiglia, E., Narizzano, M., Tacchella, A.: Clause/term resolution and learning in the evaluation of quantified boolean formulas. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 26, 371–416 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Heule, M., Hunt, W., Kaufmann, M., Wetzler, N.: Efficient, verified checking of propositional proofs. In: Ayala-Rincón, M., Muñoz, C.A. (eds.) ITP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10499, pp. 269–284. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66107-0_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Heule, M., Hunt, W.A., Wetzler, N.: Trimming while checking clausal proofs. In: Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2013, pp. 181–188. IEEE Computer Soc. (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: An Achilles’ heel of term-resolution. In: Oliveira, E., Gama, J., Vale, Z., Lopes Cardoso, H. (eds.) EPIA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10423, pp. 670–680. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65340-2_55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Büning, H.K., Karpinski, M., Flögel, A.: Resolution for quantified boolean formulas. Inf. Comput. 117(1), 12–18 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Kronegger, M., Pfandler, A., Pichler, R.: Conformant planning as benchmark for QBF-solvers. In: International Workshop on Quantified Boolean Formulas - QBF 2013 (2013). http://fmv.jku.at/qbf2013/

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Niemetz, A., Preiner, M., Lonsing, F., Seidl, M., Biere, A.: Resolution-based certificate extraction for QBF. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 430–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Peitl, T., Slivovsky, F., Szeider, S.: Dependency learning for QBF. In: Gaspers, S., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10491, pp. 298–313. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66263-3_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabe, M.N., Seshia, S.A.: Incremental determinization. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 375–392. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Rabe, M.N., Tentrup, L.: CAQE: a certifying QBF solver. In: Kaivola, R., Wahl, T. (eds.) Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design - FMCAD 2015, pp. 136–143. IEEE Computer Soc. (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rintanen, J.: Asymptotically optimal encodings of conformant planning in QBF. In: 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1045–1050. AAAI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Staber, S., Bloem, R.: Fault localization and correction with QBF. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 355–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_34

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Tentrup, L.: Non-prenex QBF solving using abstraction. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 393–401. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Siekmann, J.H., Wrightson, G. (eds.) Automation of Reasoning. Symbolic Computation (Artificial Intelligence), pp. 466–483. Springer, Heidelberg (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81955-1_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Wetzler, N., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt, 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_31

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Conflict driven learning in a quantified boolean satisfiability solver. In: Pileggi, L.T., Kuehlmann, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design, ICCAD 2002, San Jose, California, USA, 10–14 November 2002, pp. 442–449. ACM / IEEE Computer Society (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Algorithms and Complexity Group, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Tomáš Peitl, Friedrich Slivovsky & Stefan Szeider

Authors
  1. Tomáš Peitl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friedrich Slivovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Szeider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friedrich Slivovsky .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany

    Olaf Beyersdorff

  2. Microsoft Research Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Christoph M. Wintersteiger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Peitl, T., Slivovsky, F., Szeider, S. (2018). Polynomial-Time Validation of QCDCL Certificates. In: Beyersdorff, O., Wintersteiger, C. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2018. SAT 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10929. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94143-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94144-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation