Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: check-all-sat support #846

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

Halbaroth
Copy link
Collaborator

@Halbaroth Halbaroth commented Sep 29, 2023

This PR adds the support for the check-all-sat support. I think we can merge the PR without clean-up its implementation as the feature doesn't break the classical model generation. Please see #847 for a clean-up roadmap of this feature.

The PR includes two ways to use this new feature:

  • using the new CLI option --all-sat (or --all-models), AE produces all the possible propositional models after each check-sat.
    For instance using the input file:
(set-logic ALL)
(declare-const x Bool)
(declare-const y Bool)
(declare-const z Bool)
(assert (or x y))
(assert (or (not y) z))
(check-sat)

and the command dune exec -- alt-ergo --all-sat --produce-models --sat-solver CDCL test.smt2, we got the output:

output of the command
                                
; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-12: I don't know (0.4635) (7 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool true)
(define-fun y () Bool false)
(define-fun z () Bool false)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-12: I don't know (0.4636) (13 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool false)
(define-fun y () Bool true)
(define-fun z () Bool true)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-12: I don't know (0.4637) (17 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool true)
(define-fun y () Bool false)
(define-fun z () Bool true)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-12: I don't know (0.4638) (23 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool true)
(define-fun y () Bool true)
(define-fun z () Bool true)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-12: Valid (0.4638) (23 steps) (goal g_1)

unsat

  • A new keyword check-all-sat is available in the SMT-LIB input language only. For instance
(set-logic ALL)
(declare-const x Bool)
(declare-const y Bool)
(declare-const z Bool)
(assert (or x y))
(assert (or (not y) z))
(check-all-sat x y)

with the command dune exec -- alt-ergo --produce-models --sat-solver CDCL --frontend legacy test.smt2
outputs

output of the commad
; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-20: I don't know (0.0003) (7 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool true)
(define-fun y () Bool false)
(define-fun z () Bool false)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-20: I don't know (0.0005) (14 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool false)
(define-fun y () Bool true)
(define-fun z () Bool true)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-20: I don't know (0.0005) (16 steps) (goal g_1)

unknown
; Returned timeout reason = NoTimeout
(
(define-fun x () Bool true)
(define-fun y () Bool true)
(define-fun z () Bool true)
)

; File "test.smt2", line 7, characters 1-20: Valid (0.0006) (16 steps) (goal g_1)

unsat

This feature is clearly more interesting as you can choose for which literals you want all the boolean models.

The PR includes also another option to print a boolean model while printing the first-order model. The feature is broken but I can restore it easily. I'm not sure if the option is really useful, at least while using the SMT-LIB input language, as there is a standard way to obtain this feature (in fact a more general feature), see #844. We should deprecate the option or reserve it for the native input language.

Some important remarks about the feature:

  • The feature doesn't work properly with the tableaux solver. The reason is simple and I actually ran into this issue while testing outputted models with the Tableaux solver. I have a solution that I will explain in details in an appropriate issue.
  • The solver outputs unsat at the end because it exhausted all the possible boolean models. This answer leaks the way AE works under the hood. I guess the best solution consists to print a comment telling we have exhausted all the boolean models. But fixing this issue will be easier after fixing Bubble decision of printing models upwards #833.

iguerNL and others added 6 commits September 29, 2023 11:51
- add a data-structure for models,
- save the strucutre in the SAT's env
- print the models in the Frontend module
all_models: reset last saved model before exploring other branches

all_models: re-set timelimit, which is inteded to be used per SAT branch/model in this case

print_status: Unknown instead of Timeout if get_interpretation && why3 output

continue models enumeration after a Timeout

avoid infinite loop in case no progression is made in all-models enumeration

do not support check-all-sat/all-models in Fun_SAT
@Halbaroth Halbaroth added enhancement models This issue is related to model generation. labels Sep 29, 2023
@Halbaroth Halbaroth changed the title Feat: check-all-sat support feat: check-all-sat support Sep 29, 2023
@Halbaroth Halbaroth mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2023
9 tasks
@Halbaroth Halbaroth marked this pull request as ready for review September 29, 2023 10:29
@@ -145,7 +145,107 @@ let main worker_id content =
begin match kind with
| Ty.Check
| Ty.Cut -> { state with local = []; }
| Ty.Thm | Ty.Sat -> { state with global = []; local = []; }
| Ty.Thm | Ty.Sat | Ty.AllSat _ ->
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There seems to be twice the same code here. Why the duplication?

@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ let parse_cmdline () =
try Parse_command.parse_cmdline_arguments ()
with Parse_command.Exit_parse_command i -> exit i


Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remove this line

timeout_kind =
match d.st_decl with
| Assume _ | PredDef _ | RwtDef _ | Push _ | Pop _ | ThAssume _->
(* cannot raise Sat or Unknown in this case *)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can't alt-ergo Timeout during one of these steps?

E.Set.add t acc
)E.Set.empty l)

| Thm | Sat ->
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

| Thm | Sat when Options.get_all_models ()

(for instance, in case of timeout and no model computed
so far). We should stop to avoid infinite loop *)
if timeout_kind != NoTimeout then raise Util.Timeout;
(* TODO: is it the appropriate status? *)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know, is it?

(* 2. default case + case where a simple interpretation is
requested *)
print_model t (Some timeout_kind);
(* TODO: is it the appropriate status? *)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know, is it?

@@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ let rec pp_value ppk ppf = function
let pp_constant ppf (_sy, t) =
Fmt.pf ppf "%a" SmtlibCounterExample.pp_abstract_value_of_type t

let output_concrete_model fmt m =
let output_concrete_model ~pp_prop_model:_ fmt m =
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can't you remove this argument?

@@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ type goal_sort =
(** The goal to be proved valid *)
| Sat
(** The goal to be proved satisfiable *)
| AllSat of string list
(** Rather generate all models involving the given list of
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why 'Rather'?

@bclement-ocp
Copy link
Collaborator

bclement-ocp commented Oct 2, 2023

Before reviewing the code in detail, I want to better understand what we are trying to achieve with that feature, so I will only make high-level remarks here.

It was my understanding that this feature was required for OptimAE. After looking at the code, it doesn't appear to be the case, as OptimAE uses a different mechanism to iterate over the propositional models for optimization (in fact, in the OptimAE branch, the all-models feature has been implemented after the rest of the optimization work). Given that OptimAE does not need this feature, and that it is actually fairly small and self-contained (all changes but those in frontend.ml seem to be trivial plumbing), we can evaluate the feature on its own merit without rushing to merge the implementation as-is.

As an aside, this feature was initially implemented for an unnamed intern project in 2011, dropped during the development of OptimAE (the removal was merged in #530) and then re-implemented later --- but if I had to wager, without that one-day hack in 2011, it would not have been implemented in OptimAE.

With that out of the way, I am not sure we want to merge this at all. I don't think there is much value in enumerating propositional models rather than actual models in general (in part because having a propositional model does not guarantee that a corresponding model of the input formula exists), and if we care about models, then model enumeration can be implemented outside the solver.

The typical way to implement model enumeration uses incremental solving: first get a model using (check-sat), get the value of the propositional term(s) you are interested in with (get-assignment) (see #844), assert that one of them should be false, then call (check-sat) again and repeat until you get unsat. Replace (check-sat) and (get-assignment) by the appropriate (incremental) API calls if not using SMT-LIB input.

I agree that providing this loop in a built-in way would be useful (in fact, the current implementation uses the exact loop I described above), but given that there is no rush for the feature I think it would be better to first clean up the interface to be able to do proper incremental solving (rather than giving a single list of commands and we're done, as we discussed) and to implement this feature on top of the incremental solving API once it exists (I think the relevant issue is #382 ).

Edit: as a side note, we should all this check-allsat rather than check-all-sat when using SMT-LIB to be compatible with MathSat5, see bottom of https://mathsat.fbk.eu/smt2examples.html

@Halbaroth
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I agree to postpone this feature until we have a sufficient support for incremental mode.

@Halbaroth
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think we can close this PR. Keeping it up to date is painful and we do not plan to support this feature in the near future.

@bclement-ocp
Copy link
Collaborator

agreed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backlog enhancement models This issue is related to model generation.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants