Implementing polymorphism in SMT solvers

Bobot, François; Conchon, Sylvain; Contejean, Evelyne; Lescuyer, Stéphane

doi:10.1145/1512464.1512466

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The plug-in communicates with the SMTsolvers using files and operating system commands. The configuration of the plug-in includes a choice of SMT-solvers: Alt-Ergo [7], cvc3, veriT [9] and Z3 [12] at this time (see Fig. 7).…”

Section: Apply Smt-solvermentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Automatic Theorem Provers in Event-B Patterns

Elsayed¹,

Elsharawy²,

El-Sharawy³

2013

IJSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Apply Smt-solvermentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Automatic Theorem Provers in Event-B Patterns

Elsayed¹,

Elsharawy²,

El-Sharawy³

2013

IJSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, only LEO and Yices appear to have been significantly tailored to their host system. For program verification, Z3 in Boogie [3] and Alt-Ergo in Why3 [8] are examples of integrated proof environments.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

More SPASS with Isabelle

Blanchette

Popescu

Wand

et al. 2012

Interactive Theorem Proving

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Sledgehammer for Isabelle/HOL integrates automatic theorem provers to discharge interactive proof obligations. This paper considers a tighter integration of the superposition prover SPASS to increase Sledgehammer's success rate. The main enhancements are native support for hard sorts (simple types) in SPASS, simplification that honors the orientation of Isabelle simp rules, and a pair of clause-selection strategies targeted at large lemma libraries. The usefulness of this integration is confirmed by an evaluation on a vast benchmark suite and by a case study featuring a formalization of language-based security.

show abstract

“…For some theories however, it is possible to give a first-order axiomatization. Unfortunately, even if a few SMT solvers also handle first-order formulas, for example, Simplify [6], CVC3 [9], Z3 [5] and Alt-Ergo [2], these axiomatizations cannot be used as theories. Indeed, these solvers are not complete when quantifiers are involved, even in the absence of theory reasoning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasoning with Triggers

Dross

Conchon

Kanig

et al.

EPiC Series in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SMT solvers can decide the satisfiability of ground formulas modulo a combination of built-in theories. Adding a built-in theory to a given SMT solver is a complex and time consuming task that requires internal knowledge of the solver. However, many theories (arrays [13], reachability [11]), can be easily expressed using first-order formulas. Unfortunately, since universal quantifiers are not handled in a complete way by SMT solvers, these axiomatics cannot be used as decision procedures.In this paper, we show how to extend a generic SMT solver to accept a custom theory description and behave as a decision procedure for that theory, provided that the described theory is complete and terminating in a precise sense. The description language consists of first-order axioms with triggers, an instantiation mechanism that is found in many SMT solvers. This mechanism, which usually lacks a clear semantics in existing languages and tools, is rigorously defined here; this definition can be used to prove completeness and termination of the theory. We demonstrate using the theory of arrays, how such proofs can be achieved in our formalism.

show abstract

Implementing polymorphism in SMT solvers

Cited by 27 publications

References 11 publications

Integration of Automatic Theorem Provers in Event-B Patterns

Integration of Automatic Theorem Provers in Event-B Patterns

More SPASS with Isabelle

Reasoning with Triggers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About