Haniel Barbosa
Cesare Tinelli
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Moving toward a full suite of proof-producing automated reasoning tools with SMT solvers that can produce full, independently checkable proofs for real-world problems.
- Amrutesh K. and Cook, B. How I learned to stop worrying and start applying automated reasoning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Intern. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (2021); https://bit.ly/3QO7vLt.Google Scholar
- Andreotti, B., Lachnitt, H., and Barbosa, B. Carcara: An efficient proof checker and elaborator for SMT proofs in the Alethe format. In Proceedings of the 29th Intern. Conf. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (April 2023).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Backes, J. et al. Semantic-based automated reasoning for AWS access policies using SMT. 2018 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, 1--9.Google Scholar
- Baek, S., Carneiro, M., and Heule, M.J.H. A flexible proof format for SAT solver-elaborator communication. In Proceedings of the 27th Intern. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, J.F. Groote and K.G. Larsen (Eds.), Springer (2021), 59--75.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baldoni, R. et al. A survey of symbolic execution techniques. ACM Computing Surveys 51, 3 (2018), 50:1--50:39.Google Scholar
- Barbosa, H. et al. <code>cvc5</code>: A versatile and industrial-strength SMT solver. In Proceedings of the 28th Intern. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, D. Fisman and G. Rosu (Eds.), Springer (2022), 415--442.Google Scholar
- Barbosa, H. et al. Scalable fine-grained proofs for formula processing. J. Autom. Reasoning 64, 3 (2020), 485--510.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barbosa, H. et al. Flexible proof production in an industrial-strength SMT solver. J. Blanchette, L. Kovács, and D. Pattinson (Eds.) In Proceedings of the 11th Intern. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning. Springer (2022), 15--35.Google Scholar
- Barrett, C.W. et al. <code>CVC4</code>. In Proceedings of the 23rd Intern. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, G. Gopalakrishnan and S. Qadeer (Eds.), Springer (July 2011), 171--177.Google Scholar
- Barrett, C.W. Satisfiability modulo theories. Handbook of Satisfiability---2nd Edition. A. Biere, M. Heule, H. van Maaren, and T. Walsh, (Eds.), IOS Press (2021), 1267--1329.Google Scholar
- Barrett, C.W. and Tinelli, C. Satisfiability modulo theories. Handbook of Model Checking, E.M. Clarke, T.A. Henzinger, H. Veith, and R. Bloem (Eds.), Springer (2018), 305--343.Google Scholar
- Blanchette, J.C., Böhme, S., and Paulson, L.C. Extending sledgehammer with SMT solvers. J. Autom. Reasoning 51, 1 (2013), 109--128.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bouton, T. et al. verit: An open, trustable and efficient smt-solver. In Proceedings of the 22nd Intern. Conf. on Automated Deduction, R.A. Schmidt, (Ed.), Springer (Aug. 2009), 151--156.Google Scholar
- Bozzano, M. et al. An incremental and layered procedure for the satisfiability of linear arithmetic logic. In Proceedings of the 11th Intern. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, N. Halbwachs and L.D. Zuck, (Eds.), Springer (Apr. 2005), 317--333.Google Scholar
- Bradley, A.R. and Manna, Z. The Calculus of Computation---Decision Procedures With Applications to Verification, Springer (2007).Google Scholar
- Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., and Nutz, D. Smtinterpol: An interpolating SMT solver. In Proceedings of the 19th Intern. Workshop on Model Checking Software, A.F. Donaldson and D. Parker (Eds.), Springer (July 2012), 248--254.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cruz-Filipe, L. et al. Efficient certified RAT verification. In Proceedings of the 28th Intern. Conf. on Automated Deduction, L. de Moura (Ed.), Springer (Aug. 2017), 220--236.Google Scholar
- de Moura, L. and Ullrich, S. The lean 4 theorem prover and programming language. In Proceedings of the 28th Intern. Conf. on Automated Deduction, A. Platzer and G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Springer (July 2021), 625--635.Google ScholarDigital Library
- de Moura, L.M. and Bjørner, N.S. Proofs and refutations, and Z3. In Proceedings of the LPAR 2008 Workshops, Knowledge Exchange: Automated Provers and Proof Assistants and the 7th Intern. Workshop on the Implementation of Logics, P. Rudnicki, G. Sutcliffe, B. Konev, R.A. Schmidt, and S. Schulz (Eds.), (Nov. 2008).Google Scholar
- Eén, N. and Sörensson, N. An extensible sat-solver. In Proceedings of the 6th Intern. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, E. Giunchiglia and A. Tacchella (Eds.), Springer (May 2003), 502--518.Google Scholar
- Ekici, B., et al. Smtcoq: A plug-in for integrating SMT solvers into coq. In Proceedings of the 29th Intern. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, Part II, R. Majumdar and V. Kuncak (Eds.), Springer (July 2017), 126--133.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heule, M. et al. Efficient, verified checking of propositional proofs. In Proceedings 8th Intern. Conf. on Interactive Theorem Proving, M. Ayala-Rincón and C.A. Muñoz (Eds.), Springer (Sept. 2017), 269--284.Google Scholar
- Heule, M.J.H. The DRAT format and drat-trim checker. CoRR, abs/1610.06229, 2016.Google Scholar
- Katz, G. et al. Lazy proofs for DPLL(T)-based SMT solvers. In Proceedings of the 2016 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, R. Piskac and M. Talupur (Eds.), IEEE, 93--100.Google Scholar
- Kiesl, B., Rebola-Pardo, A., and Heule, M.J.H. Extended resolution simulates DRAT. In Proceedings of the 9th Intern. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning, D. Galmiche, S. Schulz, and R. Sebastiani, (Eds.), Springer (July 2018), 516--531.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Konnov, I. et al. (Eds.): Handbook of model checking. In Proceedings of Formal Aspects of Computing 31, 4, Springer (2019), 455--456.Google Scholar
- Lammich, P. Efficient verified (UN)SAT certificate checking. In Proceedings of the 26th Intern. Conf. on Automated Deduction, L. de Moura (Ed.), Springer (Aug. 2017), 237--254.Google Scholar
- Liang, T. et al. A DPLL(T) theory solver for a theory of strings and regular expressions. In Proceedings of the 26th Computer Aided Verification Intern. Conf., A. Biere and R. Bloem, (Eds.), Springer (July 2014), 646--662.Google Scholar
- Nieuwenhuis, R. and Oliveras, A. Proof-producing congruence closure. In Proceedings of the 16th Intern. Conf. Term Rewriting and Applications, J. Giesl (Ed.), Springer (Apr. 2005), 453--468.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., and Tinelli, C. Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: From an abstract davis--putnam--logemann--loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM 53, 6 (2006), 937--977.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., and Wenzel, M. Isabelle/HOL - A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, Springer (2002).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nötzli, A. et al. Reconstructing fine-grained proofs of rewrites using a domain-specific language. In Proceedings of the 2022 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, IEEE, 65--74.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, A. et al. Reductions for strings and regular expressions revisited. In Proceedings of the 2020 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, IEEE, 225--235.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, A. et al. Scaling up DPLL(T) string solvers using context-dependent simplification. In Proceedings of the 29th Computer Aided Verification Intern. Conf., R. Majumdar and V. Kuncak, (Eds.), Springer (July 2017), 453--474.Google Scholar
- Robinson, J.A. and Voronkov, A. Preface. Handbook of Automated Reasoning (in 2 Volumes), Elsevier and MIT Press (2001), v--vii.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schurr H-J. et al. Alethe: Towards a generic SMT proof format (extended abstract), (2021), 336:49--54.Google Scholar
- Shankar, N. Automated deduction for verification. ACM Comput. Surveys 41, 4 (2009), 20:1--20:56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Srivastava, S., Gulwani, S., and Foster, J.S. From program verification to program synthesis. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, M.V. Hermenegildo and J. Palsberg, (Eds.), (Jan. 2010), 313--326.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stump, A. et al. SMT proof checking using a logical framework. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 42, 1 (2013), 91--118.Google ScholarDigital Library
- The Coq development team. The coq proof assistant reference manual version 8.9, (2019).Google Scholar
- Wagner, L.G et al. Qualification of a model checker for avionics software verification. In Proceedings of the 9th Intern. Symp. of NASA Formal Methods, C.W. Barrett, M. Davies, and T. Kahsai (Eds.), (May 2017), 404--419.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Generating and Exploiting Automated Reasoning Proof Certificates
Recommendations
Proof Certificates for Equality Reasoning
The kinds of inference rules and decision procedures that one writes for proofs involving equality and rewriting are rather different from proofs that one might write in first-order logic using, say, sequent calculus or natural deduction. For example, ...
Generating Proof Certificates for a Language-Agnostic Deductive Program Verifier
Previous work on rewriting and reachability logic establishes a vision for a language-agnostic program verifier, which takes three inputs: a program, its formal specification, and the formal semantics of the programming language in which the program ...
Foundational proof certificates: making proof universal and permanent
LFMTP '13: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGPLAN international workshop on Logical frameworks & meta-languages: theory & practiceConsider a world where exporting proof evidence into a declarative, universal, and permanent format is taken as ``feature zero'' for computational logic systems. In such a world, provers will be able to communicate and share theorems and proofs; ...
Comments