skip to main content

When Less Is More: Consequence-Finding in a Weak Theory of Arithmetic

Published:11 January 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper presents a theory of non-linear integer/real arithmetic and algorithms for reasoning about this theory. The theory can be conceived of as an extension of linear integer/real arithmetic with a weakly-axiomatized multiplication symbol, which retains many of the desirable algorithmic properties of linear arithmetic. In particular, we show that the conjunctive fragment of the theory can be effectively manipulated (analogously to the usual operations on convex polyhedra, the conjunctive fragment of linear arithmetic). As a result, we can solve the following consequence-finding problem: given a ground formula F, find the strongest conjunctive formula that is entailed by F. As an application of consequence-finding, we give a loop invariant generation algorithm that is monotone with respect to the theory and (in a sense) complete. Experiments show that the invariants generated from the consequences are effective for proving safety properties of programs that require non-linear reasoning.

References

  1. Corinne Ancourt, Fabien Coelho, and François Irigoin. 2010. A Modular Static Analysis Approach to Affine Loop Invariants Detection. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 267, 1 (2010), October, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2010.09.002 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Roberto Bagnara, Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell, and Enea Zaffanella. 2005. Generation of Basic Semi-Algebraic Invariants Using Convex Polyhedra. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Static Analysis (SAS’05). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 19–34. isbn:3540285849 https://doi.org/10.1007/11547662_4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Haniel Barbosa, François Bobot, and Jochen Hoenicke. 2022. SMT-COMP 2021. https://smt-comp.github.io/2021/benchmarks.html Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Florence Benoy, Andy King, and Fred Mesnard. 2005. Computing Convex Hulls with a Linear Solver. Theory Pract. Log. Program., 5, 1–2 (2005), Jan, 259–271. issn:1471-0684 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068404002261 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Josh Berdine and Nikolaj Bjørner. 2014. Computing All Implied Equalities via SMT-Based Partition Refinement. In Automated Reasoning, Stéphane Demri, Deepak Kapur, and Christoph Weidenbach (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 168–183. isbn:978-3-319-08587-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08587-6_12 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Dirk Beyer. 2022. Progress on Software Verification: SV-COMP 2022. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 375–402. isbn:978-3-030-99527-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_20 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Nikolaj Bjørner, Anh-Dung Phan, and Lars Fleckenstein. 2015. ν Z - An Optimizing SMT Solver. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Christel Baier and Cesare Tinelli (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 194–199. isbn:978-3-662-46681-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cristina Borralleras, Daniel Larraz, Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell, Albert Oliveras, and Albert Rubio. 2019. Incomplete SMT Techniques for Solving Non-Linear Formulas over the Integers. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, 20, 4 (2019), Article 25, aug, 36 pages. issn:1529-3785 https://doi.org/10.1145/3340923 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cristina Borralleras, Salvador Lucas, Rafael Navarro-Marset, Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell, and Albert Rubio. 2009. Solving Non-linear Polynomial Arithmetic via SAT Modulo Linear Arithmetic. In Automated Deduction – CADE-22, Renate A. Schmidt (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 294–305. isbn:978-3-642-02959-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02959-2_23 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Winfried Bruns, Bogdan Ichim, Christof Söger, and Ulrich von der Ohe. 2021. Normaliz Algorithms for rational cones and affine monoids. Version 3.9.1,. https://www.normaliz.uni-osnabrueck.de Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno Buchberger. 1976. A Theoretical Basis for the Reduction of Polynomials to Canonical Forms. SIGSAM Bull., 10, 3 (1976), August, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/1088216.1088219 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Hongfei Fu, Amir Kafshdar Goharshady, and Ehsan Kafshdar Goharshady. 2020. Polynomial Invariant Generation for Non-Deterministic Recursive Programs. PLDI 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3385969 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Václav Chvátal. 1973. Edmonds Polytopes and a Hierarchy of Combinatorial Problems. Discrete Math., 4, 4 (1973), apr, 305–337. issn:0012-365X https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-365X(73)90167-2 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. George E. Collins. 1975. Quantifier elimination for real closed fields by cylindrical algebraic decompostion. In Automata Theory and Formal Languages, H. Brakhage (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 134–183. isbn:978-3-540-37923-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-07407-4_17 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Michael Colón. 2004. Approximating the Algebraic Relational Semantics of Imperative Programs. In Static Analysis, 11th International Symposium, SAS 2004, Verona, Italy, August 26-28, 2004, Proceedings, Roberto Giacobazzi (Ed.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3148). Springer, 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27864-1_22 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Michael A. Colón, Sriram Sankaranarayanan, and Henny B. Sipma. 2003. Linear Invariant Generation Using Non-linear Constraint Solving. In Computer Aided Verification, Warren A. Hunt and Fabio Somenzi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 420–432. isbn:978-3-540-45069-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_39 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Patrick Cousot and Nicolas Halbwachs. 1978. Automatic Discovery of Linear Restraints among Variables of a Program. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’78). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 84–96. isbn:9781450373487 https://doi.org/10.1145/512760.512770 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. David A. Cox, John Little, and Donal O’Shea. 2015. Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated. isbn:3319167200, 9783319167206 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16721-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. John Cyphert, Jason Breck, Zachary Kincaid, and Thomas Reps. 2019. Refinement of Path Expressions for Static Analysis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 3, POPL (2019), Article 45, Jan, 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290358 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Priyanka Darke, Sakshi Agrawal, and R. Venkatesh. 2021. VeriAbs: A Tool for Scalable Verification by Abstraction (Competition Contribution). In Proc. TACAS (2) (LNCS 12652). Springer, 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_32 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Priyanka Darke, Bharti Chimdyalwar, R. Venkatesh, Ulka Shrotri, and Ravindra Metta. 2015. Over-Approximating Loops to Prove Properties Using Bounded Model Checking. In Proceedings of the 2015 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE ’15). EDA Consortium, San Jose, CA, USA. 1407–1412. isbn:9783981537048 https://doi.org/10.7873/DATE.2015.0245 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. 2008. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In Proceedings of the Theory and Practice of Software, 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’08/ETAPS’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 337–340. isbn:3540787992 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Steven de Oliveira, Saddek Bensalem, and Virgile Prevosto. 2016. Polynomial Invariants by Linear Algebra. In Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, Cyrille Artho, Axel Legay, and Doron Peled (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 479–494. isbn:978-3-319-46520-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46520-3_30 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Azadeh Farzan and Zachary Kincaid. 2015. Compositional recurrence analysis. In 2015 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD). 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2015.7542253 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Paul Feautrier. 1996. Automatic parallelization in the polytope model. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 79–103. isbn:978-3-540-70646-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61736-1_44 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl, Aart Middeldorp, Peter Schneider-Kamp, René Thiemann, and Harald Zankl. 2007. SAT Solving for Termination Analysis with Polynomial Interpretations. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2007, João Marques-Silva and Karem A. Sakallah (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 340–354. isbn:978-3-540-72788-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_33 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Harald Ganzinger, George Hagen, Robert Nieuwenhuis, Albert Oliveras, and Cesare Tinelli. 2004. DPLL(T): Fast Decision Procedures. In Computer Aided Verification, Rajeev Alur and Doron A. Peled (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 175–188. isbn:978-3-540-27813-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27813-9_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Sicun Gao, Jeremy Avigad, and Edmund M. Clarke. 2012. δ -Complete Decision Procedures for Satisfiability over the Reals. In Automated Reasoning, Bernhard Gramlich, Dale Miller, and Uli Sattler (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 286–300. isbn:978-3-642-31365-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31365-3_23 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Susanne Graf and Hassen Saidi. 1997. Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In Computer Aided Verification, Orna Grumberg (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 72–83. isbn:978-3-540-69195-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63166-6_10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Bhargav S. Gulavani and Sumit Gulwani. 2008. A Numerical Abstract Domain Based on Expression Abstraction and Max Operator with Application in Timing Analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV ’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 370–384. isbn:9783540705437 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_35 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. William Hart, Fredrik Johansson, and Sebastian Pancratz. 2021. FLINT: Fast Library for Number Theory. Version 2.8.0, http://flintlib.org Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Chris Hawblitzel, Jon Howell, Jacob R. Lorch, Arjun Narayan, Bryan Parno, Danfeng Zhang, and Brian Zill. 2014. Ironclad Apps: End-to-End Security via Automated Full-System Verification. In 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 14). USENIX Association, Broomfield, CO. 165–181. isbn:978-1-931971-16-4 https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/presentation/hawblitzel Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Matthias Heizmann, Jochen Hoenicke, and Andreas Podelski. 2009. Refinement of Trace Abstraction. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Static Analysis (SAS ’09). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 69–85. isbn:9783642032363 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03237-0_7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ehud Hrushovski, Joël Ouaknine, Amaury Pouly, and James Worrell. 2018. Polynomial Invariants for Affine Programs. In Logic in Computer Science. 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209142 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Andreas Humenberger, Maximilian Jaroschek, and Laura Kovács. 2018. Invariant Generation for Multi-Path Loops with Polynomial Assignments. In VMCAI. 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73721-8_11 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Bertrand Jeannet and Antoine Miné. 2009. Apron: A Library of Numerical Abstract Domains for Static Analysis. In Computer Aided Verification, Ahmed Bouajjani and Oded Maler (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 661–667. isbn:978-3-642-02658-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_52 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Dejan Jovanović. 2017. Solving Nonlinear Integer Arithmetic with MCSAT. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, Ahmed Bouajjani and David Monniaux (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 330–346. isbn:978-3-319-52234-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52234-0_18 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Dejan Jovanović and Leonardo de Moura. 2013. Solving Non-Linear Arithmetic. ACM Commun. Comput. Algebra, 46, 3/4 (2013), Jan, 104–105. issn:1932-2240 https://doi.org/10.1145/2429135.2429155 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Zachary Kincaid, John Cyphert, Jason Breck, and Thomas Reps. 2017. Non-Linear Reasoning for Invariant Synthesis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 2, POPL (2017), Article 54, dec, 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3158142 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Zachary Kincaid, Nicolas Koh, and Shaowei Zhu. 2022. Artifact for article "When Less is More: Consequence Finding in a Weak Theory of Arithmetic". https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7321183 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zachary Kincaid, Nicolas Koh, and Shaowei Zhu. 2022. When Less Is More: Consequence-Finding in a Weak Theory of Arithmetic. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2211.04000 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Zachary Kincaid, Thomas Reps, and John Cyphert. 2021. Algebraic Program Analysis. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 46–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81685-8_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Laura Kovács. 2008. Reasoning Algebraically About P-Solvable Loops. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, C. R. Ramakrishnan and Jakob Rehof (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 249–264. isbn:978-3-540-78800-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_18 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Gereon Kremer and Erika Ábrahám. 2020. Fully Incremental Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition. J. Symb. Comput., 100, C (2020), Sep, 11–37. issn:0747-7171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsc.2019.07.018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Gereon Kremer, Florian Corzilius, and Erika Ábrahám. 2016. A Generalised Branch-and-Bound Approach and Its Application in SAT Modulo Nonlinear Integer Arithmetic. In Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing - 18th International Workshop, CASC 2016, Bucharest, Romania, September 19-23, 2016, Proceedings, Vladimir P. Gerdt, Wolfram Koepf, Werner M. Seiler, and Evgenii V. Vorozhtsov (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9890). Springer, 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45641-6_21 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Jean-Louis Krivine. 1964. Anneaux préordonnés. Journal d’analyse mathématique, 12 (1964), p. 307–326. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00165658 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Christian Lengauer. 1993. Loop parallelization in the polytope model. In CONCUR’93, Eike Best (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 398–416. isbn:978-3-540-47968-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57208-2_28 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Yi Li, Aws Albarghouthi, Zachary Kincaid, Arie Gurfinkel, and Marsha Chechik. 2014. Symbolic Optimization with SMT Solvers. SIGPLAN Not., 49, 1 (2014), Jan, 607–618. issn:0362-1340 https://doi.org/10.1145/2578855.2535857 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Murray A. Marshall. 2008. Positive polynomials and sums of squares. AMS. https://doi.org/10.1090/surv/146/02 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Markus Müller-Olm and Helmut Seidl. 2004. Precise Interprocedural Analysis through Linear Algebra. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 330–341. isbn:158113729X https://doi.org/10.1145/964001.964029 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Greg Nelson and Derek C. Oppen. 1979. Simplification by Cooperating Decision Procedures. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 1, 2 (1979), Oct, 245–257. issn:0164-0925 https://doi.org/10.1145/357073.357079 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Andreas Podelski and Andrey Rybalchenko. 2004. A Complete Method for the Synthesis of Linear Ranking Functions. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, Bernhard Steffen and Giorgio Levi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 239–251. isbn:978-3-540-24622-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24622-0_20 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Mihai Putinar. 1993. Positive Polynomials on Compact Semi-Algebraic Sets. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 42 (1993), 969–984. coden:IUMJAB issn:0022-2518 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Thomas Reps, Mooly Sagiv, and Greta Yorsh. 2004. Symbolic Implementation of the Best Transformer. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, Bernhard Steffen and Giorgio Levi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 252–266. isbn:978-3-540-24622-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24622-0_21 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell and Deepak Kapur. 2004. Automatic Generation of Polynomial Loop Invariants: Algebraic Foundations. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (ISSAC ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 266–273. isbn:158113827X https://doi.org/10.1145/1005285.1005324 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Alexander Schrijver. 1980. On Cutting Planes. In Combinatorics 79, Peter L. Hammer (Ed.) (Annals of Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 9). Elsevier, 291–296. issn:0167-5060 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70085-2 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Alexander Schrijver. 1999. Theory of linear and integer programming. Wiley. isbn:978-0-471-98232-6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Roberto Sebastiani and Silvia Tomasi. 2012. Optimization in SMT with LA( Q) Cost Functions. In Automated Reasoning, Bernhard Gramlich, Dale Miller, and Uli Sattler (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 484–498. isbn:978-3-642-31365-3 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Abraham Seidenberg. 1954. A New Decision Method for Elementary Algebra. Annals of Mathematics, 60, 2 (1954), 365–374. issn:0003486X https://doi.org/10.2307/1969640 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Alfred Tarski. 1949. A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 14, 3 (1949), 188–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/2267068 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Aditya Thakur, Akash Lal, Junghee Lim, and Thomas Reps. 2015. PostHat and All That: Automating Abstract Interpretation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 311 (2015), 15–32. issn:1571-0661 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2015.02.003 Fourth Workshop on Tools for Automatic Program Analysis (TAPAS 2013) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Aditya V. Thakur. 2014. Symbolic Abstraction: Algorithms and Applications. Ph. D. Dissertation. Comp. Sci. Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin. Madison, WI. Tech. Rep. 1812 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Cesare Tinelli. 2003. Cooperation of Background Reasoners in Theory Reasoning by Residue Sharing. J. Autom. Reason., 30, 1 (2003), Jan, 1–31. issn:0168-7433 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022587501759 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Ashish Tiwari. 2005. An Algebraic Approach for the Unsatisfiability of Nonlinear Constraints. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL’05). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 248–262. isbn:3540282319 https://doi.org/10.1007/11538363_18 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Ashish Tiwari and Patrick Lincoln. 2014. A Nonlinear Real Arithmetic Fragment. In Computer Aided Verification, Armin Biere and Roderick Bloem (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham. 729–736. isbn:978-3-319-08867-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_48 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Maarten. H. Van Emden and Robert A. Kowalski. 1976. The Semantics of Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. J. ACM, 23, 4 (1976), oct, 733–742. issn:0004-5411 https://doi.org/10.1145/321978.321991 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Philipp Wendler and Dirk Beyer. 2022. sosy-lab/benchexec: Release 3.11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6024083 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Harald Zankl and Aart Middeldorp. 2010. Satisfiability of Non-linear (Ir)rational Arithmetic. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, Edmund M. Clarke and Andrei Voronkov (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 481–500. isbn:978-3-642-17511-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_27 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Shaowei Zhu and Zachary Kincaid. 2021. Termination analysis without the tears. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453483.3454110 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. When Less Is More: Consequence-Finding in a Weak Theory of Arithmetic

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)145
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!