I would like to set the initial value for variables in z3py in an efficient way.
x,y = Ints(x,y)
s = Solver()
s.add(x>10)
s.check()
s.model()
I would expect the output value is e.g., x = 11, y = 0, not the result x = 11, y = 7.
One way to do it is:
x,y = Ints(x,y)
s = Optimize()
s.add_soft(x==0)
s.add_soft(y==0)
s.add(x>10)
s.check()
s.model()
But it takes much computation time as my program contains many of variables. Any better way to do it?
The slow-down is because you're forcing the optimizer to run, which is an overkill for this purpose. (The optimizing solver can handle max-sat problems, which does the job here, but it is costly and not needed for this case.)
Instead, simply walk over the model and see if there's an assignment for it:
from z3 import *
def model_with_zeros(s, vs):
m = s.model()
result = []
for v in vs:
val = m.eval(v)
if val.eq(v):
result.append((v, 0))
else:
result.append((v, val))
return result
x, y = Ints('x y')
s = Solver()
s.add(x > 10)
print s.check()
print model_with_zeros(s, [x, y])
This prints:
sat
[(x, 11), (y, 0)]
Note that you have to explicitly pass the solver and the variables you are interested in to the model_with_zeros function; as the trick here is precisely to see which variables the solver left untouched.
If you want a different initial value, then you can modify model_with_zeros to account for that for each variable separately.
I'm experimenting with (and failing at) reducing sets in z3 over operations like addition. The idea is eventually to prove stuff about arbitrary reductions over reasonably-sized fixed-sized sets.
The first of the two examples below seems like it should yield unsat, but it doesn't. The second does work, but I would prefer not to use it as it requires incrementally fiddling with the model.
def test_reduce():
LIM = 5
VARS = 10
poss = [Int('i%d'%x) for x in range(VARS)]
i = Int('i')
s = Solver()
arr = Array('arr', IntSort(), BoolSort())
s.add(arr == Lambda(i, And(i < LIM, i >= 0)))
a = arr
for x in range(len(poss)):
s.add(Implies(a != EmptySet(IntSort()), arr[poss[x]]))
a = SetDel(a, poss[x])
def final_stmt(l):
if len(l) == 0: return 0
return If(Not(arr[l[0]]), 0, l[0] + (0 if len(l) == 1 else final_stmt(l[1:])))
sm = final_stmt(poss)
s.push()
s.add(sm == 1)
assert s.check() == unsat
Interestingly, the example below works much better, but I'm not sure why...
def test_reduce_with_loop_model():
s = Solver()
i = Int('i')
arr = Array('arr', IntSort(), BoolSort())
LIM = 1000
s.add(arr == Lambda(i, And(i < LIM, i >= 0)))
sm = 0
f = Int(str(uuid4()))
while True:
s.push()
s.add(arr[f])
chk = s.check()
if chk == unsat:
s.pop()
break
tmp = s.model()[f]
sm = sm + tmp
s.pop()
s.add(f != tmp)
s.push()
s.add(sm == sum(range(LIM)))
assert s.check() == sat
s.pop()
s.push()
s.add(sm == 11)
assert s.check() == unsat
Note that your call to:
f = Int(str(uuid4()))
Is inside the loop in the first case, and is outside the loop in the second case. So, the second case simply works on one variable, and thus converges quickly. While the first one keeps creating variables and creates a much harder problem for z3. It's not surprising at all that these two behave significantly differently, as they encode entirely different constraints.
As a general note, reducing an array of elements with an operation is just not going to be an easy problem for z3. First, you have to assume an upper bound on the elements. And if that's the case, then why bother with Lambda or Array at all? Simply create a Python list of that many variables, and ignore the array logic completely. That is:
elts = [Int("s%d"%i) for i in range(100)]
And then to access the elements of your 'array', simply use Python accessor notation elts[12].
Note that this only works if all your accesses are with a constant integer; i.e., your index cannot be symbolic. But if you're looking for proving reduction properties, that should suffice; and would be much more efficient.
I have an example of a code and not sure what way is the best to use.
For example I have
if (x = 1) and (y = 2) and (if abc = false then check if z = 3) then
begin
...
check only
if x = 1
if y = 2
if abc = false check z = 3. if abc = true then dont check z = 3
i am not sure if i am explaining the best but hopefuly people will understand.
I want to know if this is possible or the best way to do it. Keeping in mind that rather than in example where its x, y, z and abc. there can be more in my use.
I currently have structure as...which i dont think is practical, and think theres a better way but i am not sure
if (abc = false) then
begin
if (x = 1) and (y = 2) and (z = 3) then
begin
...
end
else
begin
if (x = 1) and (y = 2) then
begin
...
Thanks in advance
I think you're looking for or. Now you will check that x must be 1, y must be 2, and if abc is false, z must be 3.
If abc = true, z can still be three, but it won't be checked.
Note that I just wrote abc instead of abc = true. Since it's a Boolean (true/false) already, that's allowed.
Also note how the operations are grouped using parentheses. The total sub-expression abc or (z=3) must return true for the total expression to return true.
Furthermore the sequence of the terms is significant - they are evaluated left-to-right. If the term (abc or (z=3)) is replaced by the logically-equivalent term ((z=3) or abc) then z=3 will be evaluated.
if (x = 1) and (y = 2) and (abc or (z = 3)) then
// Your magic goes here
Test program body to prove sequence is important
function z : Integer;
begin
writeln('Z being evaluated');
result := x + y;
end;
begin
x := 1;y := 2;
abc := true;
if (x=1) and (y=2) and (abc or (z=3)) then
writeln ('evaluated true')
else
writeln ('evaluated false');
writeln('done');
readln;
end.
Neither of your code samples compile, because neither is using the proper syntax.
This should get you started:
if (x = 1) and (y = 2) then
begin
if (abc) then
// Handle abc = True
else
begin
if (z = 3) then
// Handle abc = false and z = 3
else
// Handle abc = false and z <> 3
end;
end;
I'm trying to find a way to do element-by-element comparison in Lua using the standard < operator. For example, here's what I'd like to do:
a = {5, 7, 10}
b = {6, 4, 15}
c = a < b -- should return {true, false, true}
I already have code working for addition (and subtraction, multiplication, etc). My issue is that Lua forces the result of a comparison to a boolean. I don't want a boolean, I want a table as the result of the comparison.
Here is my code so far, with addition working, but less-than comparison not working:
m = {}
m['__add'] = function (a, b)
-- Add two tables together
-- Works fine
c = {}
for i = 1, #a do
c[i] = a[i] + b[i]
end
return c
end
m['__lt'] = function (a, b)
-- Should do a less-than operator on each element
-- Doesn't work, Lua forces result to boolean
c = {}
for i = 1, #a do
c[i] = a[i] < b[i]
end
return c
end
a = {5, 7, 10}
b = {6, 4, 15}
setmetatable(a, m)
c = a + b -- Expecting {11, 11, 25}
print(c[1], c[2], c[3]) -- Works great!
c = a < b -- Expecting {true, false, true}
print(c[1], c[2], c[3]) -- Error, lua makes c into boolean
The Lua programming manual says that the result of the __lt metamethod call is always converted to a boolean. My question is, how can I work around that? I heard that Lua is good for DSL, and I really need the syntax to work here. I think it should be possible using MetaLua, but I'm not really sure where to start.
A coworker suggested that I just use << instead with the __shl metamethod. I tried it and it works, but I really want to use < for less than, rather than a hack using the wrong symbol.
Thanks!
You only have two choices to make this work with your syntax:
Option 1: Patch the Lua core.
This is probably going to be very difficult, and it'll be a maintenance nightmare in the future. The biggest issue is that Lua assumes on a very low level that the comparison operators <, >, ==, ~= return a bool value.
The byte-code that Lua generates actually does a jump on any comparison. For example, something like c = 4 < 5 gets compiled to byte-code that looks much more like if (4 < 5) then c = true else c = false end.
You can see what the byte-code looks like with luac -l file.lua. If you compare the byte-code of c=4<5 with c=4+5 you'll see what I mean. The addition code is shorter and simpler. Lua assumes you'll do branching with comparisons, not assignment.
Option 2: Parse your code, change it, and run that
This is what I think you should do. It would be very hard, expect most of the work is already done for you (using something like LuaMinify).
First of all, write a function you can use for comparisons of anything. The idea here is to do your special comparison if it's a table, but fall back on using < for everything else.
my_less = function(a, b)
if (type(a) == 'table') then
c = {}
for i = 1, #a do
c[i] = a[i] < b[i]
end
return c
else
return a < b
end
end
Now all we need to do is replace every less than operator a<b with my_less(a,b).
Let's use the parser from LuaMinify. We'll call it with the following code:
local parse = require('ParseLua').ParseLua
local ident = require('FormatIdentity')
local code = "c=a*b<c+d"
local ret, ast = parse(code)
local _, f = ident(ast)
print(f)
All this will do is parse the code into a syntax tree, and then spit it back out again. We'll change FormatIdentity.lua to make it do the substitution. Replace the section near line 138 with the following code:
elseif expr.AstType == 'BinopExpr' then --line 138
if (expr.Op == '<') then
tok_it = tok_it + 1
out:appendStr('my_less(')
formatExpr(expr.Lhs)
out:appendStr(',')
formatExpr(expr.Rhs)
out:appendStr(')')
else
formatExpr(expr.Lhs)
appendStr( expr.Op )
formatExpr(expr.Rhs)
end
That's all there is to it. It will replace something like c=a*b<c+d with my_less(a*b,c+d). Just shove all your code through at runtime.
Comparisons in Lua return a boolean value.
There is nothing you can do about it short of changing the core of Lua.
Can you put up with a bit verbose v()-notation:
v(a < b) instead of a < b ?
local vec_mt = {}
local operations = {
copy = function (a, b) return a end,
lt = function (a, b) return a < b end,
add = function (a, b) return a + b end,
tostring = tostring,
}
local function create_vector_instance(operand1, operation, operand2)
local func, vec = operations[operation], {}
for k, elem1 in ipairs(operand1) do
local elem2 = operand2 and operand2[k]
vec[k] = func(elem1, elem2)
end
return setmetatable(vec, vec_mt)
end
local saved_result
function v(...) -- constructor for class "vector"
local result = ...
local tp = type(result)
if tp == 'boolean' and saved_result then
result, saved_result = saved_result
elseif tp ~= 'table' then
result = create_vector_instance({...}, 'copy')
end
return result
end
function vec_mt.__add(v1, v2)
return create_vector_instance(v1, 'add', v2)
end
function vec_mt.__lt(v1, v2)
saved_result = create_vector_instance(v1, 'lt', v2)
end
function vec_mt.__tostring(vec)
return
'Vector ('
..table.concat(create_vector_instance(vec, 'tostring'), ', ')
..')'
end
Usage:
a = v(5, 7, 10); print(a)
b = v(6, 4, 15); print(b)
c = a + b ; print(c) -- result is v(11, 11, 25)
c = v(a + b); print(c) -- result is v(11, 11, 25)
c = v(a < b); print(c) -- result is v(true, false, true)
As others have already mentioned, there is no straight-forward solution to this. However, with the use of a generic Python-like zip() function, such as the one shown below, you can simplify the problem, like so:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Python-like zip() iterator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
function zip(...)
local arrays, ans = {...}, {}
local index = 0
return
function()
index = index + 1
for i,t in ipairs(arrays) do
if type(t) == 'function' then ans[i] = t() else ans[i] = t[index] end
if ans[i] == nil then return end
end
return table.unpack(ans)
end
end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = {5, 7, 10}
b = {6, 4, 15}
c = {}
for a,b in zip(a,b) do
c[#c+1] = a < b -- should return {true, false, true}
end
-- display answer
for _,v in ipairs(c) do print(v) end
Sometimes, evaluating a boolean expression in a model doesn't return a concrete boolean value even when the expression clearly has a concrete value. I've been able to reduce this to cases involving array expressions such as this test case:
from z3 import *
x = K(IntSort(), 0)
s = Solver()
s.check()
m = s.model()
print m.evaluate(x == Store(x, 0, 1), model_completion=True)
I would expect this to print False, but instead it prints K(Int, 0) == Store(K(Int, 0), 0, 1). Other examples produce similar results. Replacing the first line with x = Array('x', IntSort(), IntSort()) gives the same result (though that's up to the default interpretation). Interestingly, replacing the first line with x = Store(K(IntSort(), 0), 0, 1) causes the example to print True.
Is there a way to force Z3 to evaluate such expressions to concrete values?