Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Successfully reported this slideshow.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

- 自然言語をラムダ式で解釈する体系PTQのHaskell実装 by Masahiro Sakai 3382 views
- ゼロピッチ: MOOC by Masahiro Sakai 445 views
- SAT/SMT solving in Haskell by Masahiro Sakai 1764 views
- Run-time Code Generation and Modal-... by Masahiro Sakai 1247 views
- RClassify: Classifying Race Conditi... by Masahiro Sakai 321 views
- 自動定理証明の紹介 by Masahiro Sakai 7634 views

698 views

Published on

Recorded video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR_nxNRXn5g

Published in:
Technology

No Downloads

Total views

698

On SlideShare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

1

Shares

0

Downloads

6

Comments

0

Likes

1

No embeds

No notes for slide

- 1. Thursday Seminar 2017-10-12 Masahiro Sakai (酒井 政裕) Writing a SAT solver as a hobby project
- 2. Outline • Decision procedures and Me • My hobby project • About SAT and SMT • Some results • Conclusion
- 3. About me • Masahiro Sakai (酒井 政裕) • joined PFN this May as an Engineer • My technical interest includes: – Functional Programming (esp. Haskell) – Program Verification and Decision Procedures for it – and Machine Learning (of course!)
- 4. Decision procedures • Decision problem: yes/no answer problems – e.g. Is intersection of given two regular language empty? • Model Checking – Does a finite state system M satisfy a temporal logic specification φ ? – it is just a language emptiness of M ∩ ¬φ, if we represent both M and φ as automaton – and can be decided using automata algorithm • Likewise, many program verification task can be reduced to simple decision problems, • Fast decision procedures have accelerated program verification. All possible behavior of M Behaviors that violate φ Counter example
- 5. Decision procedures and Me • When I was a grad student, ~10 years ago, I listened to talks about model checking tools. • Later, I was working on program verification, using decision procedures as off-the-shelf tools • I was impressed by their strength and usefulness, and got interested in their algorithms and implementations • Therefore I started writing toy level implementations …
- 6. My hobby project
- 7. My hobby project : toysolver • Several years ago – I started writing some code snippet just to understand those algorithms • Over the years, – I have added more and more algorithms, and the codebase grew • Now – it contains not a few algorithms and it’s ~30 kloc
- 8. Some of problems and algorithms • Presburger Arithmetic – Omega Test – Cooper’s Algorithm • Real Arithmetic – Fourier-Motzkin variable elimination – Simplex method – Gröbner basis (Buchberger) – Quantifier Elimination • (Mixed) Integer Programming – Branch-and-bound – Cutting plane (Gomory’s Cut) – Conti-Traverso • SAT / MaxSAT / Pseudo Boolean – DPLL / CDCL • SMT – Uninterpreted function (Congruence Closure) – Bitvectors Most of them are toy-level, but the SAT solver is modestly fast.
- 9. https://github.com/msakai/toysolver http://hackage.haskell.org/package/toysolver It’s available online
- 10. Wait !? http://hackage.haskell.org/package/toysolver ……
- 11. Why Haskell? 1. Because it’s the language I used most, and it’s handy for me if usable from Haskell easily 2. It’s suitable for symbolic computation like formula manipulation. 3. I have two questions: – Haskell has a good compiler and runtime suitable for usual application domain, But… – “How about computation intensive application like SAT?” – “Is good functional interface possible?”
- 12. Why I’m writing it? • Developing a state-of-the-art implementation • Learning algorithms • Familiarizing other libraries and tools • Handy implementation for my self
- 13. Reason: Learning algorithms • Learning cleaver algorithm is itself fun • Implementation is the best way to understand it • In addition to that, • the knowledge of algorithms was useful when I use other (state-of-the-art) implementation as a off-the- shelf tool
- 14. Reason: Familiarizing other libraries and tools • Writing and maintaining such project is a good opportunity to try new libraries, frameworks and services • For example, – I have learned several Haskell libraries, – and also integration of GitHub, Traivs CI, AppVeyor, Coveralls.io, etc.
- 15. Reason: Handy implementation for myself • Having handy implementation for myself is useful for – experimenting new algorithms, – solving puzzles (e.g. Sudoku, Number Link, etc.) – using in a programming competition • In particular, there are less such library available for Haskell
- 16. About SAT and SMT
- 17. What is SAT? • SAT = Boolean SATisfiability problem – “Is there an assignment that makes given formula true?” • Examples: – (P∨Q)∧(P∨￢Q)∧(￢P∨￢Q) is satisfiable with {P ↦ True, Q ↦ False} – (P∨Q)∧(P∨￢Q)∧(￢P∨￢Q)∧(￢P∨Q) is unsatisfiable • SAT is NP complete, but state-of-the-art SAT-solver can often solve problems with millions of variables / constraints. • Has many applications
- 18. Some Applications of SAT (and SMT) • Software/Hardware verification – Model checking, Test-case generation, … • Theorem proving • Puzzles: Sudoku, Number link, Nonogram, etc. • Program Synthesis • and more
- 19. What is SMT? • Weakness of SAT: Really low-level representation – Encoding problems into SAT sometimes blows-up – SAT solver cannot leverage high-level knowledge • SMT = Satisfiability Modulo Theories – An approach to overcome the weakness of SAT – Problem Example: Is there array a, function f, integers i, j such that “0 ≤ i ∧ i < 10 ∧ (2i+1=j ∨ read(a,i)=0) ∧ f(read(write(a,i,3), j-2)) ≠ f(j-i+1)”?
- 20. SMT = SAT solver + Theory solvers • SAT solver is responsible for Boolean reasoning • Theory solvers are responsible for handling specific functions/relations etc. SAT Solver Arithmetic Solver: +, ×, ≤ BitVector Solver Uninterpreted Function Solver: f, g, = Array Solver read, write …
- 21. What is interesting about SAT and SMT? (for me) • Theory of mathematical logic is connected to practical application • For example, – In SAT, its CDCL algorithm can be seen as doing concurrently • search satisfying assignment (model theoretic) • constraint propagation and conflict learning (proof theoretic deduction) – In SMT, theory combination closely related to Craig interpolation theorem
- 22. My SAT solver: toysat p cnf 250 1065 -159 -234 197 0 -71 13 194 0 45 -218 38 0 191 -129 -88 0 117 -164 -29 0 107 53 115 0 167 111 -57 0 -115 94 98 0 25 -51 -165 0 247 31 -64 0 156 228 11 0 64 199 -162 0 1 173 -54 0 $ toysat UF250.1065.100/uf250-01.cnf …… c #vars 250 c #constraints 1065 c Solving starts ... c ============================[ Search Statistics ]================ c Time | Restart | Decision | Conflict | LEARNT | Fixed | Removed c | | | | Limit GC | Var | Constra c ========================================================== c 0.0s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 438 0 | 0 | 0 …… c 4.0s | 11 | 23520 | 19665 | 1259 37 | 0 | 0 c #cpu_time = 3.872s c #wall_clock_time = 3.957s c #decision = 23520 c #random_decision = 105 c #conflict = 19665 c #restart = 11 s SATISFIABLE v -1 -2 3 -4 5 -6 7 -8 9 -10 v -11 -12 -13 14 15 16 17 -18 19 20 v 21 22 -23 -24 25 26 -27 28 29 -30 v 31 32 -33 34 -35 36 37 -38 39 -40 … ¬x159∨¬x234∨x197
- 23. My SMT solver: toysmt (set-option :produce-models true) (set-logic QF_UFLRA) (declare-sort U 0) (declare-fun x () Real) (declare-fun f (U) Real) (declare-fun P (U) Bool) (declare-fun g (U) U) (declare-fun c () U) (declare-fun d () U) (assert (= (P c) (= (g c) c))) (assert (ite (P c) (> x (f d)) (< x (f d)))) (check-sat) (get-model) (exit) $ toysmt QF_UFLRA.smt2 success … sat ((define-fun P ((x!1 U)) Bool (ite (= x!1 (as @3 U)) true false)) (define-fun c () U (as @3 U)) (define-fun d () U (as @4 U)) (define-fun f ((x!1 U)) Real (ite (= x!1 (as @4 U)) 0 (/ 555555 1))) (define-fun g ((x!1 U)) U (ite (= x!1 (as @3 U)) (as @3 U) (as @-1 U))) (define-fun x () Real (/ 1 10)))
- 24. Some results?
- 25. Some results? • Several talks • Solver competitions – Pseudo Boolean Competition 2012 – Max-SAT Evaluation 2013 – SMT-COMP 2016 – … • How was writing SAT solver in Haskell?
- 26. I have had talks based on what I learned
- 27. Pseudo Boolean Competition 2012 (PB'12) competition result: • Ranked high in some minor divisions: – placed 2nd in PARTIAL-BIGINT-LIN and SOFT- BIGINT-LIN categories – placed 4th in PARTIAL-SMALLINT-LIN and SOFT- SMALLINT-LIN categories – placed 8th in OPT-BIGINT-LIN category
- 28. SMT-COMP 2016 QF_LRA (Main Track) http://smtcomp.sourceforge.net/2016/results-QF_LRA.shtml?v=1467876482 ‘toysmt’ ended up dead last. But without wrong results! (Thanks to QuickCheck!)
- 29. How was writing SAT solver in Haskell? • How about writing computation intensive application like SAT? – Not so bad, but with some frustration: – e.g. Haskell allocate memory like breathing, but I want to avoid memory allocation in tight loop. It’s possible if we write carefully, but … • Is good functional interface possible? – Not tried yet. My SAT solver is based on imperative API and imperative implementation.
- 30. Conclusion • As a hobby project, I have been writing toy-level implementation of various algorithms • In particular, algorithms for SAT and related problems • It’s mainly for fun, but I have gained good experience from the activity
- 31. Thank you! And any questions or comments?

No public clipboards found for this slide

Be the first to comment