Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Applied Mathematics
Volume 2013, Article ID 964682, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/964682
Research Article

A Unified Framework for DPLL(T) + Certificates

Min Zhou,1,2,3,4 Fei He,1,2,3 Bow-Yaw Wang,5 Ming Gu,1,2,3 and Jiaguang Sun1,2,3

1Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology (TNList), Beijing 100084, China
2School of Software, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
3Key Laboratory for Information System Security, MOE, Beijing 100084, China
4Department of Computer Science and Technologies, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
5Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei 115, Taiwan

Received 6 February 2013; Accepted 8 April 2013

Academic Editor: Xiaoyu Song

Copyright © 2013 Min Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. C. Barrett, M. Deters, L. de Moura, A. Oliveras, and A. Stump, “6 Years of SMT-COMP,” Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 243–277, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. C. Barrett and C. Tinelli, “CVC3,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pp. 298–302, Springer, July 2007.
  3. L. Moura and N. Bjrner, “Z3: an efficient SMT solver,” in Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, C. Ramakrishnan and J. Rehof, Eds., vol. 4963 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 337–340, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  4. P. Beame, H. Kautz, and A. Sabharwal, “Understanding the power of clause learning,” in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1194–1201, Citeseer, Acapulco, Mexico, August 2003.
  5. J. Silva, “An overview of backtrack search satisfiability algorithms,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, Citeseer, January 1998.
  6. P. Beame and T. Pitassi, “Propositional proof complexity: past, present, and future,” in Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, The Computational Complexity Column, pp. 66–89, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  7. S. Cook, “The complexity of theorem-proving procedures,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 151–158, ACM, Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA, 1971.
  8. M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland, “A machine program for theorem-proving,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 5, pp. 394–397, 1962. View at Google Scholar
  9. R. Nieuwenhuis, A. Oliveras, and C. Tinelli, “Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: from an abstract davis—putnam—logemann—loveland procedure to DPLL(T),” Journal of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 6, Article ID 1217859, pp. 937–977, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. W. Moskewicz, C. F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik, “Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver,” in Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, pp. 530–535, June 2001. View at Scopus
  11. N. Een and N. Sorensson, “An extensible SAT-solver,” in Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pp. 333–336, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  12. A. Biere, “PicoSAT essentials,” Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, vol. 4, article 45, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  13. M. Boespug, Q. Carbonneaux, and O. Hermant, “The λπ-calculus modulo as a universal proof language,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Proof Exchange for Theorem Proving (PxTP '12), June 2012.
  14. A. Stump, D. Oe, A. Reynolds, L. Hadarean, and C. Tinelli, “SMT proof checking using a logical framework,” Formal Methods in System Design, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 91–118.
  15. D. Deharbe, P. Fontaine, B. Paleo et al., “Quantifier inference rules for SMT proofs,” 1st International Workshop on Proof eXchange for Theorem Proving (PxTP '11), 2011.
  16. P. Fontaine, J. Y. Marion, S. Merz, L. Nieto, and A. Tiu, “Expressiveness + automation + soundness: towards combining SMT solvers and interactive proof assistants,” in Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, H. Hermanns and J. Palsberg, Eds., vol. 3920 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 167–181, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  17. D. Oe, A. Reynolds, and A. Stump, “Fast and flexible proof checking for SMT,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Satifiability Modulo Theories (SMT '09), pp. 6–13, ACM, August 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Cimatti, A. Griggio, and R. Sebastiani, “A simple and exible way of computing small unsatisfiable cores in SAT modulo theories,” in Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing SAT, J. Marques-Silva and K. Sakallah, Eds., vol. 4501 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 334–339, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  19. Y. Ge and C. Barrett, “Proof translation and SMT-LIB benchmark certification: a preliminary report,” in Proceedings of International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT '08), August 2008.
  20. S. Bohme, “Proof reconstruction for Z3 in Isabelle/HOL,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT '9), August 2009.
  21. M. Moskal, “Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers,” in Tools and Algorithms For the Construction and Analysis of Systems, C. Ramakrishnan and J. Rehof, Eds., vol. 4963 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 486–500, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  22. C. Barrett, A. Stump, and C. Tinelli, “The SMT-LIB standard: version 2.0,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories, Edinburgh, UK, 2010.