Evaluation of Cardinality Constraints on SMT-Based Debugging

For formal verification of hardware Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers are increasingly applied. Today's state-of-the-art SMT solvers use different techniques like term-rewriting, abstraction, or bit-blasting. The performance does not only depend on the underlying decision problem but also on the encoding of the original problem into an SMT instance. In this work, encodings for cardinality constraints in SMT are investigated. Three different encodings are considered: an adder network, an encoding with multiplexors, and a newly proposed encoding with shifters. The encodings are analyzed with respect to size and complexity. The experimental evaluation on debugging instances that contain cardinality constraints shows the strong influence of the encoding on the resulting run-times.

[1]  Bruno Dutertre,et al.  A Fast Linear-Arithmetic Solver for DPLL(T) , 2006, CAV.

[2]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Post-verification debugging of hierarchical designs , 2005, ICCAD 2005.

[3]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Automatic Fault Localization for Property Checking , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.

[4]  Kwang-Ting Cheng,et al.  RTL Error Diagnosis Using a Word-Level SAT-Solver , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Test Conference.

[5]  Carsten Sinz,et al.  Towards an Optimal CNF Encoding of Boolean Cardinality Constraints , 2005, CP.

[6]  Inês Lynce,et al.  Towards Robust CNF Encodings of Cardinality Constraints , 2007, CP.

[7]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[8]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  Translating Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into SAT , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[9]  Olivier Roussel,et al.  A Translation of Pseudo Boolean Constraints to SAT , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[10]  Anna Philippou,et al.  Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems , 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[11]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[12]  Robert Wille,et al.  Evaluation of SAT like Proof Techniques for Formal Verification of Word Level Circuits , 2007 .

[13]  J. P. Marques,et al.  GRASP : A Search Algorithm for Propositional Satisfiability , 1999 .

[14]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Efficient Hierarchical System Debugging for Property Checking , 2005 .

[15]  Olivier Bailleux,et al.  Efficient CNF Encoding of Boolean Cardinality Constraints , 2003, CP.

[16]  G. S. Tseitin.  On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus , 1983 .

[17]  Marco Bozzano,et al.  The MathSAT 3 System , 2005, CADE.

[18]  Nikolaj Bjørner,et al.  Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver , 2008, TACAS.

[19]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Experimental Studies on SMT-based Debugging , 2008 .

[20]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  DPLL( T): Fast Decision Procedures , 2004, CAV.

[21]  David L. Dill,et al.  A Decision Procedure for Bit-Vectors and Arrays , 2007, CAV.

[22]  Andreas G. Veneris.  Fault diagnosis and logic debugging using Boolean satisfiability , 2003, Proceedings. 4th International Workshop on Microprocessor Test and Verification - Common Challenges and Solutions.

[23]  Philipp Hertel,et al.  Formalizing Dangerous SAT Encodings , 2007, SAT.

[24]  L. D. Moura,et al.  The YICES SMT Solver , 2006 .

[25]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Computers.