skip to main content
research-article

Instantiation Schemes for Nested Theories

Published:01 June 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article investigates under which conditions instantiation-based proof procedures can be combined in a nested way, in order to mechanically construct new instantiation procedures for richer theories. Interesting applications in the field of verification are emphasized, particularly for handling extensions of the theory of arrays.

References

  1. Abadi, A., Rabinovich, A., and Sagiv, M. 2010. Decidable fragments of many-sorted logic. J. Symbolic Comput. 45, 2, 153--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Althaus, E., Kruglov, E., and Weidenbach, C. 2009. Superposition modulo linear arithmetic sup(la). In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Frontiers of Combining Systems. S. Ghilardi and R. Sebastiani Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5749, Springer, 84--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bachmair, L. and Ganzinger, H. 1994. Rewrite-based equational theorem proving with selection and simplification. J. Logic Comput. 3, 4, 217--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H., and Waldmann, U. 1994. Refutational theorem proving for hierachic first-order theories. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 5, 193--212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Barrett, C., Stump, A., and Tinelli, C. 2010. The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB). www.SMT-LIB.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Basin, D. and Ganzinger, H. 2001. Automated complexity analysis based on ordered resolution. J. ACM 48, 70--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Baumgartner, P. and Tinelli, C. 2003. The model evolution calculus. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Deduction. F. Baader Ed., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2741, Springer, 350--364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonacina, M. P., Lynch, C. A., and Moura, L. 2011. On deciding satisfiability by theorem proving with speculative inferences. J. Autom. Reason. 47, 161--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bradley, A. R. and Manna, Z. 2007. The Calculus of Computation: Decision Procedures with Applications to Verification. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bradley, A. R., Manna, Z., and Sipma, H. B. 2006. What’s decidable about arrays? In Proceedings of the Conference on Verification, Model-Checking and Abstract Interpretation. E. A. Emerson and K. S. Namjoshi Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3855, Springer, 427--442. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Franzén, A., Griggio, A., and Sebastiani, R. 2009. Delayed theory combination vs. Nelson-Oppen for satisfiability modulo theories: A comparative analysis. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 55, 1--2, 63--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Comon, H. and Delor, C. 1994. Equational formulae with membership constraints. Inf. Comput. 112, 2, 167--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Comon, H., Dauchet, M., Gilleron, R., Jacquemard, F., Lugiez, D., Tison, S., and Tommasi, M. 1997. Tree automata techniques and applications. http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/tata.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. de Moura, L. M. and Bjørner, N. 2007. Efficient E-matching for SMT solvers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction. F. Pfenning Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4603, Springer, 183--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. de Moura, L. M. and Bjørner, N. 2009. Generalized, efficient array decision procedures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design. IEEE, 45--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Detlefs, D. L., Nelson, G., and Saxe, J. B. 2005. Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking. J. ACM 52, 3, 365--473. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Dreben, B. and Goldfarb, W. D. 1979. The Decision Problem, Solvable Classes of Quantificational Formulas. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Echenim, M. and Peltier, N. 2010. Instantiation of SMT problems modulo integers. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6167, Springer, 49--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Echenim, M. and Peltier. 2011. Modular instantiation schemes. Inf. Process. Lett. 111, 20, 989--993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Echenim, M. and Peltier, 2012. An instantiation scheme for satisfiability modulo theories. J. Automat. Reason. 48, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Fontaine, P. 2009. Combinations of theories for decidable fragments of first-order logic. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Frontiers of Combining Systems. S. Ghilardi and R. Sebastiani Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5749, Springer, 263--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Fontaine, P., Ranise, S., and Zarba, C. G. 2004. Combining lists with non-stably infinite theories. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3452, Springer, 51--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Ganzinger, H. 2001. Relating semantic and proof-theoretic concepts for polynomial time decidability of uniform word problems. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’01). 81--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ganzinger, H. and Korovin, K. 2003. New directions in instantiation-based theorem proving. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’03). IEEE Computer Society Press, 55--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ganzinger, H., Sofronie-Stokkermans, V., and Waldmann, U. 2006. Modular proof systems for partial functions with Evans equality. Inf. Comput. 204, 1453--1492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ge, Y. and de Moura, L. M. 2009. Complete instantiation for quantified formulas in satisfiabiliby modulo theories. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. A. Bouajjani and O. Maler Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5643, Springer, 306--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ge, Y., Barrett, C. W., and Tinelli, C. 2009. Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 55, 1--2, 101--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ghilardi, S. and Ranise, S. 2010. Backward reachability of array-based systems by SMT solving: Termination and invariant synthesis. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 6, 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ghilardi, S., Nicolini, E., Ranise, S., and Zucchelli, D. 2007. Decision procedures for extensions of the theory of arrays. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50, 231--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Givan, R. 2000. Polynomial-time computation via local inference relations. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 3, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Givan, R. and McAllester, D. 1992. New results on local inference relations. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufman Press, 403--412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Goel, A., Krstić, S., and Fuchs, A. 2008. Deciding array formulas with frugal axiom instantiation. In Proceedings of the Joint Workshops of the 6th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories and 1st International Workshop on Bit-Precise Reasoning (SMT’08/BPR’08). ACM, New York, 12--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Habermehl, P., Iosif, R., and Vojnar, T. 2008. What else is decidable about integer arrays? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures. R. M. Amadio Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4962, Springer, 474--489. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ihlemann, C., Jacobs, S., and Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. 2008. On local reasoning in verification. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4963, Springer, 265--281. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jacobs, S. 2008. Incremental instance generation in local reasoning. In Notes from the 1st CEDAR Workshop, International Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR’08). F. Baader, S. Ghilardi, M. Hermann, U. Sattler, and V. Sofronie-Stokkermans Eds., 47--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kapur, D. and Zarba, C. G. 2005. A reduction approach to decision procedures. Tech. rep. http://www.cs.unm.edu/kapur/mypapers/reduction.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, S. and Plaisted, D. A. 1992. Eliminating duplication with the hyper-linking strategy. J. Automat. Reason. 9, 25--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Loos, R. and Weispfenning, V. 1993. Applying linear quantifier elimination. Comput. J. 36, 5, 450--462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. McPeak, S. and Necula, G. C. 2005. Data structure specifications via local equality axioms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 476--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Nelson, G. and Oppen, D. C. 1979. Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1, 245--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ohlbach, H. J. and Koehler, J. 1999. Modal logics, description logics and arithmetic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 109, 1--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Plaisted, D. A. and Zhu, Y. 2000. Ordered semantic hyperlinking. J. Automat. Reason. 25, 3, 167--217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. 2005. Hierarchic reasoning in local theory extensions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Deduction. R. Nieuwenhuis Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3632, Springer, 219--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. 2010. Hierarchical reasoning for the verification of parametric systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Reasoning. J. Giesl and R. Hähnle Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6173, Springer, 171--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Tinelli, C. and Harandi, M. 1996. A new correctness proof of the Nelson-Oppen combination procedure. In Frontiers of Combining Systems, Applied Logic Series, vol. 3, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 103--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Instantiation Schemes for Nested Theories

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
        ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 14, Issue 2
        June 2013
        366 pages
        ISSN:1529-3785
        EISSN:1557-945X
        DOI:10.1145/2480759
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 June 2013
        • Revised: 1 August 2011
        • Accepted: 1 August 2011
        • Received: 1 July 2011
        Published in tocl Volume 14, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader