Equality Logic and Uninterpreted Functions平等的逻辑和解释的功能.pptVIP

Decision Procedures in First Order Logic Decision Procedures forEquality Logic Constructing Smaller E-Graphs Interlude… So far we solved ?UF in three steps: Reduce ?UF to Equality Logic ?E , and Reduce ?E to Propositional Logic formula ?enc ? ?trans OR Find a small domain to each variable. Solve propositional formula Next, we improve the small-domain method by constructing smaller E-graphs. Smaller E-graphs So far we first reduced ?UF to ?E and only then constructed the E-graph. The Clique problem: n function instances in ?UF ? n-clique between f1 ...fn, and a similar clique between their arguments in GE(?E) New strategy: add to graph functional consistency constraints ‘as needed’ Constructing smaller E-graphs Let flat(?UF) be a formula derived from ?UF by replacing each UF instance Fi with a new variable fi Example:   ?UF : F1(G1(x1) ? F2(G2(x2)) ? x1 = x2  flat(?UF) : f1 ? f2 ? x1 = x2 Constructing smaller E-graphs Recall: to check the satisfiability of ?UF1: F1(x1) ? F2(x2) ? ((x1 = x2) ? true) We need to check, according to Bryant’s reduction: The following optimization only works with Bryant’s reduction Constructing smaller E-graphs Attempt #1: construct GE(?E) according to flat(?UF)Note - build GE(?E) before Bryant’s reduction! ?UF1: F1(x1) ? F2(x2) ? ((x1 = x2) ? true) flat(?UF1): f1 ? f2 ? ((x1 = x2) ? true) Constructing smaller E-graphs Does the single assignment we have: x1 = 0, x2 = 0, f1 = 1, f2 = 2satisfy Constructing smaller E-graphs Does the single assignment we have: x1 = 0, x2 = 0, f1 = 1, f2 = 2satisfy Constructing smaller E-graphs Does the single assignment we have: x1 = 0, x2 = 0, f1 = 1, f2 = 2satisfy So what is missing ? Answer: the graph fails to represent the fact that, due to functional consistency  implies x1 ? x2 Constructing smaller E-graphs Suggestion: if there is a solid edge between fi and fj, add a solid edge between their arguments Now the assignment x