Advertisement

A Rewrite Rule Based Framework for Combining Decision Procedures *

Preliminary Draft
  • Deepak Kapur
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2309)

Abstract

A rewrite rule based framework for combining decision procedures for universally quantified theories is proposed. It builds on the key ideas of Shostak's combination approach. A distinctive feature of the proposed framework is that its soundness and completeness can be easily established. Furthermore, the framework has the desired property of being efficient (by avoiding duplication of equality reasoning in all decision procedures) as well as generating canonical forms as in Shostak's combination framework. It thus enables tight integration of decision procedures with equational and inductive reasoning based on rewriting.

Keywords

Canonical Form Decision Procedure Function Symbol Predicate Symbol Disjunctive Normal Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Armando, S. Ranise, and M. Rusinowitch, “Uniform derivation of superposition based decision procedures,” Proc. Computer Science in Logic (CSL’01), 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.W. Barrett, D.L. Dill and J. Levitt, “Validity checking for combinations of theories with equality,” Proc. Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (eds. Srivas and Camilleri), LNAI, Nov. 1996, 187–201.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.W. Barrett, D.L. Dill and A. Stump, “A framework for cooperating decision procedures,” Proc. CADE-17 (ed. Mcallester), LNAI 1831, Pittsburgh, June 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N.S. Bjorner, Integrating Decision Procedures for Temporal Verification. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University, CA, Nov. 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Cyrluk, P. Lincoln, and N. Shankar, “On Shostak’s decision procedures for combination of theories,” Proc. Automated Deduction-CADE 13, LNAI 1104 (eds. McRobbie and Slaney), Springer Verlag (1996), 463–477.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.J. Downey, R. Sethi, and R.E. Tarjan, “Variations on the common subexpression problem,” JACM, 27(4) (1980), 758–771zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Giesl and D. Kapur, “Decidable classes of inductive theormes,” Proc. Intl. Joint Conf. Automated Reasoning, IJCAR-2001, Siena, Italy, LNAI, June 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Kapur, “Shostak’s congruence closure as completion,” Proc. RTA’97 (ed. Comon), LNAI 1232, May 1997, Spain.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Kapur, “Rewriting, decision procedures and lemma speculation for automated hardware verification,” Proc. Theorem Provers in Higher-order Logics, TPHOL New Jersey (ed. Gunter and Felty), Springer LNAI 1275, August 1997, 171–182.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Kapur, “Rewriting, Induction and Decision Procedures: A Case Study of Presburger Arithmetic,” Symbolic-algebraic methods and verification methods-Theory and Applications, (eds. G. Alefeld, J. Rohn, S. Rump, T. Yamamato), Springer Mathematics, Wien-NY, 2001, 129–144.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Kapur, A Rewrite Rule based Framework for Combining Decision Procedures. Tech. Report, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of New Mexico, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Kapur and X. Nie, “Reasoning about numbers in Tecton,” Proc. 8th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, (ISMIS’94), Charlotte, North Carolina, October 1994, 57–70.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Kapur and M. Subramaniam, “New uses of linear arithmetic in automated theorem proving for induction,” J. Automated Reasoning, 16(1–2) (1996), 39–78zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Kapur and M. Subramaniam, “Extending decision procedures with induction schemes,” Proc. CADE-17, LNAI 1831, Pittsburgh, June 2000, 324–345.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Kapur and M. Subramaniam, “Using an induction prover for verifying arithmetic circuits,” Intl. J. of Software Tools for Technology Transfer, Springer Verlag, Vol. 3(1), Sep. 2000, 32–65.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Kapur and H. Zhang, “An overview of Rewrite Rule Laboratory (RRL), ” Computers and Math. with Applications, 29(2) (1995), 91–114.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, On Fourier’s algorithm for linear arithmetic constraints, J. of Automated Reasoning, 9, 1992, 373–379.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. R. Levitt, Formal Verification Techniques for Digital Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, CA, Dec. 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Nelson, and D.C. Oppen, “Simplification by cooperating decision procedures,” ACM Tran. on Programming Languages and Systems 1 (2) (1979) 245–257.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Nelson, and D.C. Oppen, “Fast decision procedures based on congruence closure,” JACM, 27(2) (1980), 356–364.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Oppen, “Reasoning about recursively defined data structures,” Proc. 5th Annual Symposium on Principles of Prog. Langs. (1979), 151–157.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Oppen, “Complexity, convexity and combination of theories,” Theoretical Computer Science, 12, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. Pugh, “The Omega test: A fast practical integer programming algorithm for dependence analysis,” CACM, 35(8), Aug 1992, 102–114.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Ruess and N. Shankar, “Deconstructing Shostak,” Proc. LICS 2001, Boston, June 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R.E. Shostak, “An algorithm for reasoning about equality,” Communications of ACM, 21(7) (1978), 583–585.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.E. Shostak, “Deciding combination of theories,” JACM 31(1), (1984) 1–12.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Tiwari, Decision Procedures in Automated Deduction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, State University of New York, Stony Brook, August 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. Zhang, D. Kapur, and M.S. Krishnamoorthy, “A mechanizable induction principle for equational Specifications,” Proc. CADE-9, Argonne, IL (eds. Lusk& Overbeek), Springer LNAI 310, May 1988, 162–Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepak Kapur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations