Does
(=> (f g))
always mean the same thing as
(or (not f) g))
?
The two expressions behave differently in my model. While using => gives me UNSAT, using the other variant does not yield any result (timeout). I would be content just having a list of operators and their meanings. I am aware of the SMTLIB standard, but the documents don't explicitly talk about the meanings of operators. Specifically '=>' seems to double as an alias for the 'ite' (if_then_else) operator if used in a ternary expression and I'm quite confused about that.
I set the AUFLIA logic, if that's relevant.
I'm looking for a simple yes or no answer first. And a proper documentation about SMT2 (maybe a book) second.
I have this rather large model generated from Daniel Jackson's marksweep model for alloy4 of those of you who are willing to see for yourself.
Your expressions are incorrect/unwellformed.
=> indeed means 'implies'. In other words, (=> f g) is equivalent to (or (not f) g).
If in doubt, you could prove it using Z3. The below query is unsat:
(declare-const p Bool)
(declare-const q Bool)
(define-fun conjecture () Bool
(= (=> p q)
(or (not p) q)))
(assert (not conjecture))
(check-sat)
Related
Given this formula,
(p & (x < 0)) | (~p & (x > 0)).
How could I get these 2 "parametric" models in Z3:
{p=true, x<0}
{p=false, x>0}
When I submit this SMTLIB program to Z3,
(declare-const p Bool)
(declare-const x Int)
(assert (or (and p (< x 0)) (and (not p) (> x 0))))
(check-sat)
(get-model)
(assert (or (not p) (not (= x -1))))
(check-sat)
(get-model)
(exit)
it gives me concrete models instead (e.g. {p=true, x=-1}, {p=true, x=-2}, ...).
You can't.
SMT solvers do not produce non-concrete models; it's just not how they work. What you want is essentially some form of "simplification" in steroids, and while you can use an SMT solver to help you in simplifying expressions, you'll have to build a tool on top that understands the kind of simplifications you'd like to see. Bottom line: What you'd consider "simple" as a person, and what an automated SMT-solver sees as "simple" are usually quite different from each other; and given lack of normal forms over arbitrary theories, you cannot expect them to do a good job.
If these sorts of simplifications is what you're after, you might want to look at symbolic math packages, such as sympy, Mathematica, etc.
I'm wondering what is the difference between these two encoding of the same list axiom:
(define-sort T1 () Int)
(declare-fun list_length ( (List T1) ) Int)
(assert (forall ( (i T1) (l (List T1)) )
(ite (= l (as nil (List T1)))
(= (list_length l) 0)
(= (list_length (insert i l)) (+ 1 (list_length l))))))
and
(define-sort T1 () Int)
(declare-fun list_length ( (List T1) ) Int)
(assert (= (list_length (as nil (List T1))) 0))
(assert (forall ( (i T1) (l (List T1)) )
(= (list_length (insert i l)) (+ 1 (list_length l)))))
For this benchmark:
(declare-const a T1)
(declare-const b T1)
(assert (not
(= (list_length (insert b (insert a (as nil (List T1))))) 2)))
(check-sat)
Somehow z3 is able to reason about the second version but not the first (where it seems to just loop forever).
Edit: same with cvc4 with the first version returning unknown.
First-order logic with quantifiers is essentially semi-decidable. In the SMT context, this means that there is no decision procedure to answer every query correctly as sat/unsat.
(Theoretical aside, not that it's that important: If you completely ignore efficiency considerations, then there are algorithms that can answer all satisfiable queries correctly, but there are no algorithms that can correctly deduce unsat. In this latter case, they'd loop forever. But this is a digression.)
So, to deal with quantifiers, SMT solvers usually employ a technique known as E-matching. Essentially, when they form a ground term mentioning uninterpreted functions, they try to instantiate quantified axioms to match them and rewrite accordingly. This technique can be quite effective in practice and scales well with typical software verification problems, but it obviously is not a panacea. For details, see this paper: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4eb2/c5e05ab5c53f20c6050f8252a30cc23561be.pdf.
Regarding your question: Essentially, when you have the ite form of the axiom, the e-matching algorithm simply fails to find the proper substitution to instantiate your axiom. For efficiency considerations, the e-matcher really looks at almost "exact" matches. (Take this with a grain of salt; it's smarter than that, but not by much.) Being too smart here hardly ever pays off in practice, since you can end up generating way too many matchings and end up exploding your search space. As usual, it's a balance between practicality, efficiency, and covering as many cases as possible.
Z3 allows specifying patterns to guide that search to a certain extent, but patterns are rather tricky to use and fragile. (I'd have pointed you to the right place in the documentation for patterns, alas the z3 documentation site is down for the time being as you yourself noticed!) You might want to play around with them to see if they give you better results. But the rule of thumb is to keep your quantified axioms as simple and obvious as possible. And your second variant precisely does that, as compared to the first. For this particular problem, definitely split the axiom into two parts, and assert both separately to cover the nil/insert cases. Combining them into one rule simply exceeds the capabilities of the current e-matcher.
Say I make a datatype A in z3:
(declare-datatypes () ((A (b (bx Int)) (c (cx Int)))))
Now, I can declare a variable t, and then, say, assert that t is a c type:
(declare-fun t () A)
(assert (exists ((x Int)) (= t (c x))))
However, this requires an existential quantifier. My question is: is it possible to do this without a quantifier?
Specifically, I'd like an expression, like is_c t or something, which is equivalent to (exists ((x Int)) (= t (c x))).
I had expected this to be straightforward, since in most functional programming languages with sum types, there's an elimination form for them, usually pattern matching, like match t of b x => false; c x => true. But I haven't been able to find anything of this nature in the z3 documentation. Is there something I'm missing?
You automatically get a tester, as an indexed identifier: (_ is c) for each constructor c.
See Section 4.2.3 of http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.6-r2017-07-18.pdf. The relevant part is on page 61 (the second paragraph):
On successfully executing this command, for each constructor c in a
declared datatype δ, the solver will also automatically declare a
tester with rank δ Bool. The tester’s name is an indexed identifier
(see Section 3.3) of the form (_ is c).
I'm confused and struggling to understand how two different input formats for Z3 fixedpoint engine are related. Short example: suppose I want to prove the existance of negative numbers. I declare a function that returns 1 for non-negative numbers and 0 for negative and then asking solver to fail if there are arguments for which function returns 0. But there is one restriction: I want solver to respond sat when there exists at least one negative number and unsat if all numbers are non-negative.
It is trivially with using declare-rel and query format:
(declare-rel f (Int Int))
(declare-rel fail ())
(declare-var n Int)
(declare-var m Int)
(rule (=> (< n 0) (f n 0)))
(rule (=> (>= n 0) (f n 1)))
(rule (=> (and (f n m) (= m 0)) fail))
(query fail)
But it becomes tricky while using pure SMT-LIB2 format (with forall). For example, straightforward
(set-logic HORN)
(declare-fun f (Int Int) Bool)
(declare-fun fail () Bool)
(assert (forall ((n Int))
(=> (< n 0) (f n 0))))
(assert (forall ((n Int))
(=> (>= n 0) (f n 1))))
(assert (forall ((n Int) (m Int))
(=> (and (f n m) (= m 0)) fail)))
(assert (not fail))
(check-sat)
returns unsat. Unsurprisingly, changing (= m 0) to (= m 1) results the same. We can get sat only implying fail from (= m 2). The problem is that I can't understand, how to ask solver using this format.
How I'm understanding it at the moment, while using forall-form we can ask to find only ∀-solutions, i.e. the answer sat means that solver managed to find interpretation (or invariant) satisfiying all assertions for all values, and unsat means that there are no such functions. In other words, it tries to prove, putting the 'proof' (the invariant) into the model (obviously, when sat).
On the contrary, when querying the solution in the declare-rel format solver searches the solution for some variables, just like the constraints are under the ∃-quantifier. In other words, it gives the counter-example. It can only print the invariant in case of unsat.
I have a couple of questions:
Am I understanding it correct? I feel like I miss some key ideas. For example, a general idea of how to express (query ...) in terms of (assert (forall ...)) will be really helpfull (and will answer question 2 automaticly).
Is there a way to solve such ∃-constraints (outputting sat when counterexample was found) with pure SMT-LIB2 format? If yes then how?
First of all, the format that uses "declare-rel", "declare-var", "rule" and "query" is a custom extension to SMT-LIB2. The "declare-var" feature is convenient for omitting bound variables from multiple rules. It also allows formulating Datalog rules with stratified negation and the semantics of this is what you should expect from stratified negation. By convention it uses "sat" to indicate that a query has a derivation, and "unsat" that no derivation exists for a query.
It turns out that standard SMT-LIB2 can express pretty much what you want for
Horn clauses without negation. Rules become implications and queries are implications of the form: (=> query false), or as you wrote it (not query).
A derivation in the custom format corresponds to a proof of the empty clause (e.g., proof of "query", which then proves "false"). So existence of a derivation means that the SMT-LIB2 assertions are "unsat". Conversely, if there is an interpretation (a model) for the Horn clauses, then such a model establishes that there is no derivation. The clauses are "sat".
In other words:
"sat" for datalog extension <=> "unsat" for SMT-LIB2 formulation
"unsat" for datalog extension <=> "sat" for SMT-LIB2 formulation
The advantage of using the pure SMT-LIB2 format, when it applies, is that
there are no special syntax extensions. These are plain SMT formulas and
others who wish to solve this class of formulas don't have to write special
extensions, they just have to ensure that the solvers that are tuned to
Horn clauses recognize the appropriate class of formulas. (Z3's implementation
of the HORN fragment does allow some flexibility in writing down Horn clauses.
You can have disjunctions in the bodies and you can have Curried implications).
There is one drawback with using the SMT-LIB2 format that the rule-based format helps with: when there is a derivation of the query, then the rule-based format has pragmas for printing elements of a tuple. Note that in general the query relation can take arguments. This feature is useful for finite domain relations.
Your example above uses integers, so the relations are not finite domain, but examples in the online-tutorial contain finite domain instances.
Now a derivation of a query also corresponds to a resolution proof. You can extract a resolution proof from the SMT-LIB2 case, but I have to say it is rather
convoluted and I have not found a way to use it effectively. The "duality" engine for Horn clauses generates derivations in a more accessible format than
the default proof format of Z3. Either way, it is likely that users run into obstacles if they try to work with the proof certificates because they are rarely used. The rule-based format does have another feature that assembles a set of predicates with instances that correspond to a derivation trail. It is easier to eyeball this output.
In the following example, I tried to use uninterpreted Boolean function like "(declare-const p (Int) Bool)" rather than single Boolean constant for each assumption. But it does not work (it gives compilation error).
(set-option :produce-unsat-cores true)
(set-option :produce-models true)
(declare-fun p (Int) Bool)
;(declare-const p1 Bool)
;(declare-const p2 Bool)
; (declare-const p3 Bool)
;; We assert (=> p C) to track C using p
(declare-const x Int)
(declare-const y Int)
(assert (=> (p 1) (> x 10)))
;; An Boolean constant may track more than one formula
(assert (=> (p 1) (> y x)))
(assert (=> (p 2) (< y 5)))
(assert (=> (p 3) (> y 0)))
(check-sat (p 1) (p 2) (p 3))
(get-unsat-core)
Output
Z3(18, 16): ERROR: invalid check-sat command, 'not' expected, assumptions must be Boolean literals
Z3(19, 19): ERROR: unsat core is not available
I understand that it is not possible (unsupported) to use Boolean function. Is there any reason behind that? Is there different way to do that?
We have this restriction because Z3 applies many simplifications before it solves a problem. Some of them will rewrite formulas and terms. The problem that is actually solved by Z3 is very often quite different from the input problem. We would have trace back the simplified assumptions to the original assumptions, or introduce auxiliary variables. Restricting to Boolean literals avoids this issue, and makes the interface very clean. Note that this restriction does not limit the expressiveness. If you think it is too annoying to declare many Boolean variables to track different assertions. I suggest you take a look at the new Python front-end for Z3 called Z3Py. It is much more convenient to use than SMT 2.0. Here is your example in Z3Py: http://rise4fun.com/Z3Py/cL
In this example, instead of creating an uninterpreted predicate p, a "vector" (actually, it is a Python list) o Boolean constants is created.
The Z3Py online tutorial contains many examples.
It is also possible to implement in Z3Py the approach that creates auxiliary variables.
Here is the script that does the trick. I defined a function check_ext that does all the plumbing. http://rise4fun.com/Z3Py/B4