1 / 52

Decision Procedures for Presburger Arithmetic

Decision Procedures for Presburger Arithmetic. Presented by Constantinos Bartzis. Presburger formulas. numeral ::= 0 | 1 | 2… var ::= x | y | z … relop ::= < | ≤ | = |  | > term ::= numeral | var | term + term | -term | numeral  term

adelores
Download Presentation

Decision Procedures for Presburger Arithmetic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Decision Procedures forPresburger Arithmetic Presented by Constantinos Bartzis

  2. Presburger formulas • numeral ::= 0 | 1 | 2… • var ::= x | y | z … • relop ::= < | ≤ | = |  | > • term ::= numeral | var | term + term | -term | numeral  term • formula ::= term relop term | formula formula | formula formula | formula | var. formula | var. formula numeral  term isn't really multiplication; it's short-hand for term + term + … + term

  3. Decision Procedures • Will discuss algorithms for determining truth of formulas of Presburger arithmetic: • Fourier-Motzkin variable elimination (FMVE) • Omega Test • Cooper's algorithm • Automata based

  4. Quantifier Elimination • All the methods we'll look at are quantifier eliminationprocedures. • If a formula with no free variables has no quantifiers, then it is easy to determine its truth value, e.g., 10 > 11  3+4 < 5  3 - 6 • Quantifier elimination works by taking input Pwith nquantifiers and turning it into equivalent formula P’ with mquantifiers, and where m < n. • So, eventually P P’ … Qand Qhas no quantifiers. • Qwill be trivially true or false

  5. Normalization • Methods require input formulas to be normalized • e.g., collect coefficients, use only < and ≤ • Methods eliminate innermost existentialquantifiers. Universal quantifiers are normalized with (x. P(x))  (x. P(x)) • In FMVE, the sub-formula under the innermost existential quantifier must be a conjunction of relations. • This means the inner formula must be converted to disjunctive normal form(DNF): (c11c12 … c1n1)  ...  (cm1cm2 … cmnm)

  6. Normalization (cont.) • The formula under  is in DNF. Next, the  must be moved inwards • First over disjuncts, using (x. P Q)  (x. P)  (x. Q) • Must then ensure every conjunct under the quantifier mentions the bound variable. Use (x. P(x) Q)  (x. P(x)) Q • For example: (x. 3 < x x +2y ≤ 6 y < 0)  (x. 3 < x x +2y ≤ 6) y < 0

  7. Fourier-Motzkin theorems • The following simple facts are the basis for a very simple quantifier elimination procedure. • Over R (or Q), with a,b > 0: (x. c ≤ax bx ≤d) bc ≤ad (x. c < ax bx ≤d) bc < ad (x. c ≤ax bx < d) bc < ad (x. c < ax bx < d) bc < ad • In all four, the right hand side is implied by the left because of transitivity • e.g., (x < y y ≤z)  x < z

  8. Fourier-Motzkin theorems (cont.) • For the other direction: (bc < ad)  (x.c < ax bx ≤d) take xto be d/b: c < a( d/b ), and b( d/b ) ≤d. • For (bc < ad)  (x.c < ax bx < d) take xto be (bc+ad)/2ab: c < a(bc+ad)/2ab  2bc < bc+ad bc < ad • Similarly for the other bound

  9. Extending to a full procedure • So far: a quantifier elimination procedure for formulas where the scope of each quantifier is 1 upper bound and 1 lower bound. • We need to extend the method to cover cases with multiple constraints. • No lower bound, many upper bounds: (x: b1x < d1b2x < d2 … bnx < dn) True!(take min(di/bi) as a witness for x) • No upper bound, many lower bounds: obviously analogous.

  10. Combining many constraints • Example: (x.c ≤ax b1x ≤d1b2x ≤d2) b1c ≤ad1b2c ≤ad2 • From left to right, the result just depends on transitivity. • From right to left, take xto be min(d1/b1, d2/b2). • In general, with many constraints, combine all possible lower-upper bound pairs. • Proof that this is possible is by induction on the number of constraints.

  11. Combining many constraints • The core elimination formula is • With nconstraints initially, evenly divided between upper and lower bounds, this formula generates n2/4 new constraints.

  12. FMVE example x. 20+x ≤ 0 y. 3y +x ≤ 10  20 ≤y - x (re-arrange) x. 20+x ≤ 0 y. 20+x ≤y  3y ≤ 10 - x (eliminate y) x. 20+x ≤ 0  60+3x ≤ 10 - x (re-arrange) x. 20+x ≤ 0  4x +50 ≤ 0 (normalize universal) x. 20+x ≤ 0  0 < 4x +50 (re-arrange)  x. -50 < 4x x ≤ -20 (eliminate x)  (-50 < -80)  T

  13. Complexity • As before, when eliminating an existential over nconstraints we may introduce n2/4 new constraints. • With kquantifiers to eliminate, we might introduce as many as n2k/4kconstraints. • If dealing with alternating quantifiers, repeated conversions to DNF may become very costly.

  14. Integers

  15. Expressiveness over Integers • Can do divisibility by specific numerals: 2|e x. 2x = e for example: x. 0 < x < 30  (2|x  3|x  5|x) • Can do integer division and modulus, as long as divisor is constant. Use one of the following results (similar for division) P(x mod d)  q,r. (x = qd +r ) (0 ≤r < d d < r ≤ 0) P(r ) P(x mod d)  q,r. (x = qd +r )  (0 ≤r < d d < r ≤ 0) P(r ) • Any formula involving modulus or integer division by a constant can be translated to one without.

  16. Expressivity over Integers • Any procedure for Z trivially can be extended to one for N (or any mixture of N and Z) too: Add extra constraints stating that variables are  0 • Relations < and ≤ can be converted into one another: x ≤y x < y +1 x < y x +1 ≤y • Decision procedures normalize to one of these relations.

  17. Fourier-Motzkin for Integers? • Central theorem is false. E.g., (xZ. 3 ≤ 2x 2x ≤ 3)  6 ≤ 6 • But one direction still works (thanks to transitivity): (x. c ≤ax bx ≤d) bc ≤ad • We can compute consequences of existentially quantified formulas /

  18. Fourier-Motzkin for Integers? • We know (x. c ≤ax bx ≤d) bc ≤ad • Thus an incomplete procedure for universal formulas over Z: • Compute negation: (x. P(x)) (x. P(x)) • Compute consequences: if (x. P(x)) then (x. P(x)) and (x. P(x))  T • Repeat for all quantified variables. • This is Phase 1 of the Omega Test

  19. Omega Phase 1 - Example x,yZ. 0 < x y < x y +1 < 2x (normalize)  x,y. 1 ≤x y +1 ≤x  2x ≤y +1 x,y. 1 ≤x y +1 ≤x  2x ≤y +1 (eliminate y) x. 1 ≤x  2x ≤x (normalize) x. 1 ≤x x ≤ 0 (eliminate x)  1 ≤ 0 

  20. Omega Phase 1 and the Interactive Theorem Provers • The Omega Test's Phase 1 is used by systems like Coq, HOL4, HOL Light and Isabelle to decide arithmetic problems. • Cons: • Incomplete • Conversion to DNF • Quadratic increase in numbers of constraints • Pros: • Easy to implement • Easy to adapt the procedures to create proofs that can be checked by other tools

  21. Some Shadows • Given x. (i ci≤aix) (j bjx ≤dj) • The formula i,j bjci≤aidj is known as the real shadow. • If all of the aior all of the bjare equal to 1, then the real shadow is exact. • If the shadow is exact, then the two formulas are equivalent.

  22. Exact Shadows • When a = 1 or b = 1, the core theorem (x. c ≤ax bx ≤d) bc ≤ad is valid because •  transitivity still holds •  take x = dif b = 1 or x = cif a = 1 • Omega Test's inventor, Bill Pugh, claims many problems in his domain (compiler optimization) have exact shadows. • Experience suggests the same is true in other domains too, such as hardware model checking. • When shadows are exact, we can pretend the problem is over R rather than Z and proceed as before.

  23. Dark Shadows • The formula i,j (ai-1)(bj-1) ≤ aidj - bjci is known as the dark shadow. • If all aior all bjare one, then this is the same as the real shadow (or exact). • The real shadow provides a test for unsatisfiability. • The dark shadow tests for satisfiability, because (a-1)(b-1) ≤ad - bc  (x. c ≤ax bx ≤d) • This is the Phase 2 of the Omega Test

  24. Omega Test Phases 1 & 2 • Problem is x. P(x) • If input is exact for one or more elements of x, then eliminate them x. P(x) x’. P’(x’) • Otherwise, calculate real shadow R: x. P(x) R so, if R , then input formula is . • Otherwise, calculate dark shadow D: D x. P(x) so, if D = T, then input formula is T.

  25. Omega Phase 2 - Example (a-1)(b-1) ≤ad - bc  (x. c ≤ax bx ≤d) x,y. 3x +2y ≤ 18  3y ≤ 4x  3x ≤ 2y +1 3y ≤ 4x 3x ≤ 2y +1 3y ≤ 4x 3x ≤ 18 - 2y 6 ≤ 8y + 4 - 9y 6 ≤ 72 - 8y - 9y y ≤ -2 17y ≤ 66 y ≤ 3 • This gives a suitable value for y, and by back-substitution, finds x = -1, y = -2 as a possible solution.

  26. Splinters • Purely existential formulas are often proved false by their real shadow; or proved true by their dark shadow • But in “rare” cases, the main theorem is needed. Let mbe the maximum of all the djs. Then splinter dark shadow

  27. Splinters • A splinter doesrepresent a smaller problem than the original because the extra equality allows xto be eliminated immediately. • When quantifiers alternate, and there is no exact shadow, the main theorem is used as an equivalence, and splinters can't be avoided. • Splinters must also be checked if neither real nor dark shadows decide an input formula.

  28. Eliminating Equalities • In an expression x. … cx = e  … the existential can be eliminated. • First, multiply all terms involving xso that they have a common coefficient. • Formula becomes x. …c’x … c’x = e’  …c’x… • This is equivalent to …e’… c’|e’ …e’…

  29. Eliminating Divisibilities x. … c | dx + e  … • Note: d < c(otherwise, replace d with d mod c). • Introduce temporary new existential variable: x,y. … cy = dx + e  … • Rearrange: x,y. … dx = cy -e  … • Use equality elimination to derive y. … d | cy -e  … • Because d < c, this process must terminate with elimination of divisibility term.

  30. Implementation - Normalization • Omega Test's main disadvantage is that it requires the matrix of the formula to be in DNF • Consider x. (x  10 x  11  9 < x ≤ 12) x = 12 • Negate, remove , <: x. (x ≤ 9  11 ≤x)  (x ≤ 10  12 ≤x)  10 ≤x x ≤ 12  (x ≤ 11  13 ≤x) • Evaluate 8 (= 23) DNF terms. • Clever preparation of input formulas can make orders of magnitude difference

  31. Implementation - Normalization • The propositional tautology (p (q q’))  (p q p q’) justifies the following procedure: • If Pis an atomic formula, then when processing P Q, assume Pis true while processing Q: • If a sub-formula Q0 of Qis such that P Q0, then replace Q0 in Qby T. • If a sub-formula Q0 of Qis such that P Q0, then replace Q0 in Qby . • Similarly, (p (q q’))  (p q p q’) for disjunctions.

  32. Example • Over  : 0 ≤x + y + 4  (0 ≤x + y + 6  0 ≤ 2x + 3y + 6) is equivalent to 0 ≤x + y + 4 • Whereas 0 ≤x + y + 4  0 ≤ -x -y -6  0 ≤ 2x + 3y + 6 is equivalent to  • Over  : 0 ≤x + y + 4  0 ≤x + y + 1  0 ≤ 2x + 3y + 6 is equivalent to 0 ≤x + y + 4  0 ≤ 2x + 3y + 6

  33. Cooper’s Algorithm

  34. Cooper's Algorithm • Cooper's algorithm is a decision procedure for Presburger arithmetic. • A non-Fourier-Motzkin alternative • It is also a quantifier elimination procedure, which also works from the inside out, eliminating existentials. • Its advantage is that it doesn't need to normalize input formulas to DNF. • Description is of simplest possible implementation; many tweaks are possible.

  35. Preprocessing • To eliminate the quantifier in x. P(x): • Normalize so that only operators are <, and divisibility (c|e), and negations only occur around divisibility leaves. • Compute least common multiplec of all coefficients of x, and multiply all terms by appropriate numbers so that in every term the coefficient of x is c. • Now apply (x. P(cx))  (x. P(x) c|x).

  36. Preprocessing Example x,y  Z. 0 < y x < y x +1 < 2y (normalize) x,y. 0 < y x < y  2y < x +2 (transform y to 2y everywhere)  x,y. 0 < 2y  2x < 2y  2y < x +2 (give y unit coefficient)  x,y. 0 < y  2x < y y < x +2  2|y

  37. Two ways • How might x. P(x) be true? • Either: • there is a least xmaking Ptrue; or • there is no least x: however small you go, there will be a smaller xthat still makes Ptrue • Construct two formulas corresponding to both cases.

  38. Case 1:Infinitely many small solutions • Look at the atomic formulas in P, and think about their values when xhas been made arbitrarily small: • x < e: if xbecomes small enough, this will be T • e < x: if xbecomes small enough, this will be • c | x+e: unchanged • This constructs P-, a formula where xonly occurs in divisibility terms. • Let  be the l.c.m.of the constants involved in divisibility terms. We just need to test P- on 1,…, .

  39. P- example • For y. 0 < y  2x < y y < x +2  2|y • 0 < ywill become  as ygets small • 2x < yalso becomes  as ygets small • y < x +2 will be T as ygets small • 2|ydoesn't change (it tests if yis even or not) • So in this case, P- (y)  ( T  2|y) 

  40. Case 2: Least solution exists • The case when there is a least xsatisfying P(x). • For there to be a least xsatisfying P(x), it must be the case that one of the terms e < xis T, and that if xwas any smaller the formula would become . • Let B = {b | b < x is a term of P(x)} • Need just consider P(b+j), where b Band 1 ≤j ≤. • Final elimination formula is:

  41. Example continued • For y. 0 < y  2x < y y < x +2  2|y • least solutions, if they exist, will be at y = 1, y = 2, y = 2x +1, or y = 2x +2 • The divisibility constraint eliminates two of these. • Original formula is equivalent to: (2x < 2  0 < x)  (0 < 2x +2 x < 0) Which is unsatisfiable.

  42. Automata based

  43. 0 1 1 0,0,1 0 0 1 0,1,1 0 1 1 0 Symbolic Representation We use finite automata to represent the integer solutions (in binary) of atomic linear constraints. Example: The constraint x1x20 has solutions: (0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2), (3,0), … The corresponding automaton

  44. 0 1 2 FA Construction • Consider a finite state transducer that computes linear integer expressions 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1 0 1 / 1 1 0 / 0 0 1 1 1 / / 0 1 Example x + 2y 0 1 / 0 1 1 / 1 1 1 / 0 010 + 2  001 0 0 / 1 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1 1 0 0

  45. 0 1 -1 Equality with 0 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1 0 1 / 1 1 0 / 0 0 1 1 1 / / 0 1 • Remove transitions that write 1. • Make state 0 accepting • states 0 1 / 0 1 1 / 1 1 1 / 0 0 0 / 0 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1

  46. 0 1 -1 Inequality (<0) • All transitions remain • States with negative carries become accepting • Same size 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1 0 1 / 1 1 0 / 0 0 1 1 1 / / 0 1 0 1 / 0 1 1 / 1 1 1 / 0 0 0 / 0 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1

  47. Non-zero Constant Term c • Same as before but now -c is the initial state • If there is no such state, create one (and possibly some intermediate states) • Size 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1 0 1 / 1 1 0 / 0 0 1 1 1 / / 0 1 0 1 / 0 1 1 / 1 1 1 / 0 0 1 -1 0 0 / 0 0 1 0 0 / / 0 1

  48. Boolean Connectives • For  compute the intersection • For  compute the union • For compute the complement

  49. Conjunction example 0 0 1 0,1,1 0 1 0,1 1 0 Automaton for x-y<1 1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0,1,1 0 0 0,1 0 0 0,1 0,-1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0,1 0 1 Automaton for x-y<1  2x-y>0 1 0 0 1 0,1 Automaton for 2x-y>0 0 1 0,1 0 1 0,1 -1,-1 -1,0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1,1 0 1 1,1 1 0 0 1 1 1,0,1 -2,-1 -2,0 -2,1 -2 0 1 1 0 1 1

  50. Existential Quantifier Elimination • To eliminate x, remove the track of x • The resulting FA is in general non-deterministic • Determinization may cause exponential blowup • Rarely occurs in practice 1 0 0 1 0,1 0 0 1 0,1,1 1 0 1 0 x . x-y<1 1 0 -1 0 0 1 0,1,1 0 1

More Related