Using Z3's Horn clause solver:
If the answer is SAT, one can get a satisfying assignment to the unknown predicates (which, in most applications, correspond to inductive invariants of some kind of transition system or procedure call system).
If the answer is unsat, then this means the exists an unfolding of the Horn clauses and an assignment to the universally quantified variables in the Horn clauses such that at least one of the safety conditions (the clauses with a false head) is violated. This constitutes a concrete witness why the system had no solution.
I suspect that if Z3 can conclude unsat, then it has some form of such witness internally (and this anyway is the case in PDR, if I remember well). Is there a way to print it out?
Maybe I badly read the documentation, but I can't find a way. (get-proof) prints something unreadable, and, besides, (set-option :produce-proofs true) makes some problems intractable.
The refutation that Z3 produces for HORN logic problems is in the form of a tree of unit-resulting resolution steps. The counterexample you're looking for is hiding in the conclusions of the unit-resolution steps. These conclusions (the last arguments of the rules) are ground facts that correspond to program states (or procedure summaries or whatever) in the counterexample. The variable bindings that produce these facts can be found in "quant-inst" rules.
Obviously, this is not human readable, and actually is pretty hard to read by machine. For Boogie I implemented a more regular format, but it is currently only available with the duality engine and only for the fixedpoint format using "rule" and "query". You can get this using the following command.
(query :engine duality :print-certificate true)
Related
I am trying to find an optimal solution using the Z3 API for python. I have used set_option("verbose", 1) to print statements that Z3 generates while checking for sat. One of the statements it prints is pb.conflict statements. The statements look something like this -
pb.conflict statements.
I want to know what exactly is pb.conflict. What do these statements signify? Also, what are the two numbers that get printed along with it?
pb stands for Pseudo-boolean. A pseudo-boolean function is a function from booleans to some other domain, usually Real. A conflict happens when the choice of a variable leads to an unsatisfiable clause set, at which point the solver has to backtrack. Keeping the backtracking to a minimum is essential for efficiency, and many of the SAT engines carefully track that number. While the details are entirely solver specific (i.e., those two numbers you're asking about), in general the higher the numbers, the more conflict cases the solver met, and hence might decide to reset the state completely or take some other action. Often, there are parameters that users can set to specify when such actions are taken and exactly what those are. But again, this is entirely solver and implementation specific.
A google search on pseudo-boolean optimization will result in a bunch of scholarly articles that you might want to peruse.
If you really want to find Z3's treatment of pseudo-booleans, then your best bet is probably to look at the implementation itself: https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3/blob/master/src/smt/theory_pb.cpp
I am trying to encode some imperative program using HORN logic of Z3 (set-logic HORN) but getting some difficulties of defining clause (using SMT2). Could anyone tell me where can I find a good source of documentations for this feature of Z3?
Well, there's more to it when it comes to "encoding" a program in horn clauses.
First you need to check an appropriate proof rule: does the program has recursive functions, should you do function summarization? and so on.
There are a few papers on the subject, but I don't think there's any tutorial on VC gen.
You may also want to take a look to some benchmarks in Horn SMT format to draw inspiration: https://svn.sosy-lab.org/software/sv-benchmarks/trunk/clauses/
Feel free to ask if you have a specific question.
since current version, there is some problem in "ctx-solver-simplify"like in the example http://rise4fun.com/Z3/CqRv z3 gives the wrong answer. I replace "ctx-solver-simplify" by "simplify" like http://rise4fun.com/Z3/x9X4
I am wondering, what's the difference between these two tactic "simplify" and "ctx-solver-simplify"?
The tactic simplify only performs "local simplifications". For every term t, we have that simplify(t) is a new term equivalent to t. Moreover, the result of simplify(t) does not depend on the context where t occurs. By context, I meant the assertion F where t occurs and all other assertions. Since, simplify is local, it is very efficient. The implementation is essentially based on a bottom up application of simplification rules. Moreover, since the result of simplify(t) does not depend on contextual information, we can cache it. Thus, even if t occurs N times in a formula F, we only need to simplify it once. All builtin solvers in Z3 apply this kind of simplification. Thus, tactics such as simplify have been extensively tested.
The tactic ctx-solver-simplify uses the context where t occurs to apply simplifications. The basic idea is to simplify a formula F by traversing it using a solver S. The solver S essentially contains the "context". Whenever S.check() returns unsat, we know the current context is inconsistent, then we can replace the current formula by false. The ctx-solver-simplify is much more expensive. First, it performs many calls to S.check(). Each one of these calls is potentially very expensive. It is also much harder to cache intermediate results. Z3 may have to simplify a subformula t many times because it occurs in different contexts.
The bug you reported in your question have been fixed. The fix will be available in the next release (version 4.1). If you need we can provide you a pre-release version of Z3 4.1
I am currently experimenting with Z3 as bounded engine for specifications written in Alloy (a relational logic/language). I am using the UFBV as target language.
I detect a problem using the Z3 option (set-option :pull-nested-quantifiers true).
For two semantically identical SMT specifications Spec1 and Spec2, Z3 times out (200 sec) for proving Spec1 but proves Spec2.
The only different between Spec1 and Spec2 is that they have different function identifiers (because I use java hash names). Can this be related to a bug?
The second observation I would like to share and discuss, is the "iff" operator in the context of UFBV. This operator is not supported, if (set-logic UFBV) is set. My solution was to use "=" instead but this do not work well if the operands contains deeply nested quantifiers and the "pull-nested-quantifiers" is set. The other saver solution is to use double implication.
Now the question:
Is there any other better solution for model "iff" in UFBV, because I think, that using double implication will in general loose maybe useable semantic information for improvement/simplifications.
http://i12www.ira.uka.de/~elghazi/tmp/
you can find: spec1 and spec2 the tow (I think) semantically identical SMT specifications, and spec3 an SMT specification using "=" to model "iff", for which z3 times out.
The default strategy for the UFBV logic is not effective for your problems. Actually, the default strategy solves all of them in less than 1 sec. To force Z3 to use the default strategy, you just need to comment the following lines in your script.
; (set-logic UFBV)
; (set-option :pull-nested-quantifiers true)
; (set-option :macro-finder true)
If the warning messages are bothering you, you can add:
(set-option :print-warning false)
That being said, I will try to address the issues you raised.
Does identifier names affect the behavior of Z3? Yes, they do.
Starting at version 3.0, we started using a total order on Z3 expressions for performing operations such as: sorting the arguments of associative-commutative operators.
This total order is based on the identifier names.
Ironically, this modification was motivated by user feedback. In previous versions, we used an internal ID for performing operations such as sorting, and breaking ties in many different heuristics. However, these IDs are based on the order Z3 creates/deletes expressions, which is based on the order users declare symbols. So, Z3 2.x behavior would be affected by trivial modifications such as removing unused declarations.
Regarding iff, it is not part of SMT-LIB 2.0 standard. In SMT-LIB 2.0, = is used for formulas and terms. To make sure Z3 is fully compliant with the SMT-LIB 2.0 standard, whenever users specify a SMT-LIB supported logic (or soon to be supported such as UFBV), Z3 only "loads" the symbols defined in it. When, a logic is not specified, Z3 assumes the user is using the "Z3 logic" that contains all supported theories in Z3, and many extra aliases such as: iff for Boolean =, if for ite, etc.
I know that Z3 cannot check the satisfiability of formulas that contain recursive functions. But, I wonder if Z3 can handle such formulas over bounded data structures. For example, I've defined a list of length at most two in my Z3 program and a function, called last, to return the last element of the list. However, Z3 does not terminate when asked to check the satisfiability of a formula that contains last.
Is there a way to use recursive functions over bounded lists in Z3?
(Note that this related to your other question as well.) We looked at such cases as part of the Leon verifier project. What we are doing there is avoiding the use of quantifiers and instead "unrolling" the recursive function definitions: if we see the term length(lst) in the formula, we expand it using the definition of length by introducing a new equality: length(lst) = if(isNil(lst)) 0 else 1 + length(tail(lst)). You can view this as a manual quantifier instantiation procedure.
If you're interested in lists of length at most two, doing the manual instantiation for all terms, then doing it once more for the new list terms should be enough, as long as you add the term:
isCons(lst) => ((isCons(tail(lst)) => isNil(tail(tail(lst))))
for each list. In practice you of course don't want to generate these equalities and implications manually; in our case, we wrote a program that is essentially a loop around Z3 adding more such axioms when needed.
A very interesting property (very related to your question) is that it turns out that for some functions (such as length), using successive unrollings will give you a complete decision procedure. Ie. even if you don't constrain the size of the datastructures, you will eventually be able to conclude SAT or UNSAT (for the quantifier-free case).
You can find more details in our paper Satisfiability Modulo Recursive Programs, or I'm happy to give more here.
You may be interested in the work of Erik Reeber on SULFA, the ``Subclass of Unrollable List Formulas in ACL2.'' He showed in his PhD thesis how a large class of list-oriented formulas can be proven by unrolling function definitions and applying SAT-based methods. He proved decidability for the SULFA class using these methods.
See, e.g., http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~reeber/IJCAR-2006.pdf .