Decision Procedures For Recursive Data Structures

Motivation Problem-Outline The structures Recursive Data Structures The Integrated Theory
Decision Procedures for Recursive Data Structures
Andreas Sander
Decision Procedures for Logical Theories, SS 2010
16.06.2010
Motivation
Intuition
A recursive data structure is (partially) composed of smaller or
simpler instances of the same structure.
Motivation
Intuition
Example: cons(1,cons(2,cons(3,nil)))
Motivation
Intuition
Main Goal
The main goal is to define decision procedures for recursive data
structures.
Motivation
Intuition
Main Goal
The main goal is to define decision procedures for recursive data
structures.
Whats about:
|cons(1,cons(2,cons(3,nil)))| > 3 ?
Problem-Outline
What we have and what we want
Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Problem-Outline
Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

Problem-Outline
Length Function
|.| : Z
Problem-Outline
Length Function
|.| : Z
Goal
Get a decision procedure for the combination of Th( A ), Th(AZ )
and |.| : Z
Problem-Outline
Applicability of Nelson & Oppen
We want to combine this with Nelsons and Oppens method:

Problem-Outline
We want to combine this with Nelsons and Oppens method:
Length Function
|.| : Z
Problem-Outline
We want can not combine this with Nelsons and Oppens method:
Length Function
|.| : Z
Problem-Outline
The Solution
Solution
Extension of Nelsons and Oppens original method!
Problem-Outline
The Solution
Solution
Overview of this talk:

Problem-Outline
The Solution
Solution
Presburger Arithmetic
Decision Procedure
Problem-Outline
The Solution
Solution
Decision Procedure
Theory of recursive data structure
Decision Procedure
Problem-Outline
The Solution
Solution
Decision Procedure
Decision Procedure
Extension of Nelsons and Oppens method in the presence of
length |.|
first-order theory
first-order theory
corresponding structure AZ : hZ; 0, s, +, , <i
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
0 : a constant
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
0 : a constant
s : a successor function
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
0 : a constant
+ : binary function addition
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
0 : a constant
: binary function subtraction
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
0 : a constant
< : predicate smaller relation
first-order theory
Z : Integer domain
0 : a constant
< : predicate smaller relation
A decision procedure was presented in the seminar.

Recursive Data Structures
A : h; A, C, S, T i consists of
a data domain
a data domain
a set of atoms A (e.g. A = {a, b, c, ...})

a data domain
a finite set of constructors C (e.g. C = {, , , ...})

a data domain
a finite set of selectors S (e.g. if has arity k > 0:

{s1 , ..., sk } S)
a data domain
a finite set of selectors S (e.g. if has arity k > 0:

{s1 , ..., sk } S)
a finite set of testers T (e.g. Is (x) is true iff x is an -term.)

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)
A Example AList
A Example AList
t(x) 6= x cons(x, y ) 6= x
A Example AList
a 6= (x1 , ..., xar () ) a 6= cons(x, y )

A Example AList
(x1 , ..., xar () ) = (y1 , ..., yar () ) cons(x, y ) = cons(z, t)

V
1iar () xi = yi x =z y =t
A Example AList
V
IsA (x) C Is (x) IsA (x) Iscons (x)
A Example AList
si (x) = y
z ((z ) = x y = zi ) cdr (cons(x, y )) = y
(z ((z ) 6= x) x = y ) IsA (x) {car , cdr }+ (x) = x
Goal
Check satisfiability of
q1 = r1 ... qk = rk s1 6= t1 ... sl 6= tl
in Th(A ).
Goal
q1 = r1 ... qk = rk s1 6= t1 ... sl 6= tl
in Th(A ).
Idea
Use a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) for those formulae.
Term-Representation
Term t can be represented by a tree Tt , s.t.

Term-Representation
1 If t is a constant, Tt is a leaf vertex (labeld by t)

Term-Representation
2 If t = (t1 , ..., tk ), then Tt is a tree (root labeled by t),

having Tt1 , ..., Ttk as its subtrees (ordered).
Term-Representation
2 If t = (t1 , ..., tk ), then Tt is a tree (root labeled by t),

having Tt1 , ..., Ttk as its subtrees (ordered).
A directed acyclic graph (DAG) Gt of t obtained from Tt by

factoring out common subtrees.
Goal
q1 = r1 ... qk = rk s1 6= t1 ... sl 6= tl
in Th(A ).
Goal
q1 = r1 ... qk = rk s1 6= t1 ... sl 6= tl
in Th(A ).
Idea
Use a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) for those formulae.
1 Add (qi , ri )(i {1, ...k}) to an equivalence relation R on
vertices
2 Close R under congruences and unification.
Groundwork
G = (V , E ) a DAG (with ordered edges).

Groundwork
Let be u V
Groundwork
Let be u V
outdegree (u)
Groundwork
Let be u V
outdegree (u)
the ith successor u[i] (i [0; (u)])
Groundwork
Let be u V
outdegree (u)
the ith successor u[i] (i [0; (u)])
R is an equivalence relation on the vertices of G.

Bidirectional Closure vs. Congruence Closure
Bidirectional Closure instead of Congruence Closure [Oppen 1980]

For the following decision procedures we will use the bidirectional
closure, instead of the congruence closure!
Bidirectional Closure vs. Congruence Closure
Bidirectional Closure instead of Congruence Closure [Oppen 1980]

For the following decision procedures we will use the bidirectional
closure, instead of the congruence closure!
Idea
cons(x, y ) = cons(z, t) x = z y = t
The Congruence Closure R
R is the unique minimal extension of R with the following

properties:
R is an equivalence relation
Two vertices u,v with equal (nonzero) outdegree:
(u, v ) R

(u[i], v [i]) R i [1; (u)]
The Unification Closure R
R is the unique minimal extension of R with the following

properties:
R is an equivalence relation
(u, v ) R

(u[i], v [i]) R i [1; (u)]
The Bidirectional Closure Rl
Theorem [Oppen 1980]

Rl is the unique minimal extension of R with the following
properties:
Rl is an equivalence relation
(u, v ) Rl
m
(u[i], v [i]) Rl i [1; (u)]
Oppens Decision Procedure for acyclic A
Input: : q1 = r1 ... qk = rk s1 6= t1 ... sl 6= tl

Task: Check satisfiability of

Algorithm 1
1 Step 1: Construct the DAG G of

Algorithm 1
2 Step 2: Compute Rl of R = {(qi , ri )|1 i k}.

Algorithm 1
2 Step 2: Compute Rl of R = {(qi , ri )|1 i k}.
3 Return UNSATISFIABLE if i(si , ti ) Rl;
Return SATISFIABLE otherwise.
Problem for Cyclic Data Structures
In our setting
If x is NOT an -term, then si (x) = x

In our setting
Complication
We dont know a priori wether s(x) is a proper subterm of x.
In our setting
Complication
We dont know a priori wether s(x) is a proper subterm of x.
Solution for Complication

We have to guess the type of all terms occuring inside an selector
function before applying the algorithm.
Oppens Decision Procedure for cyclic A
Input : q1 = r1 ... qk = rk s1 6= t1 ... sl 6= tl


Algorithm 2
0
1 Step 1:Guess a type completion of and simplify selector
terms accordingly.

Algorithm 2
0
1 Step 1:Guess a type completion of and simplify selector
terms accordingly.
0
2 Step 2: Call Algorithm 1 on
Example Application of Algorithm 2
Example
cons(y,z) = cons(cdr(x),z) cons(car(x),y) 6= x
Unification Closure
(u, v ) R

(u[i], v [i]) Ri [1; (u)]
The Structure B
Overview - Where Are We Now?

Decision Procedure
The Structure B

Decision Procedure
Decision Procedure
The Structure B

Decision Procedure
Decision Procedure
length |.|
The Structure B

Decision Procedure
Decision Procedure
length |.|
The Structure of the Integrated Theory

B = (A ; AZ ; |.| : Z)
The Structure B

Decision Procedure
Decision Procedure
length |.|

B = (A ; AZ ; |.| : Z)
For any atom a, |a| = 1

The Structure B

Decision Procedure
Decision Procedure
length |.|

B = (A ; AZ ; |.| : Z)
For any atom a, |a| = 1

Pk
For a term (t1 , ..., tk ), |(t1 , ..., tk )| = i=1 |ti |.
Why not Nelson & Oppen?
Why?
We want can not combine this with Nelsons and Oppens method
Why?
Consider BList ,
: x = cons(car(y),y) and Z :|x|<2|car(x)|
Why?
Consider BList ,
: x = cons(car(y),y) and Z :|x|<2|car(x)|
Observation
Constraints of data structures impose hidden constraints on the
lenghts of those structures.
Induced Length Constraint
Idea
Explicitly compute the hidden constraints!
Length constraint :
Idea
Length constraint :
is sound, if satisfying of , | | is a satisfying

assignment for .
Idea
Length constraint :
is complete, if whenever is satisfiable, for any satisfying

assignment of there exists a satisfying assignment
of s.t. | | = .
Idea
Length constraint :
is induced by , if is sound & complete.

Satisfiability of B
Main Theorem
Let be in the form Z . Let be the induced length
constraint with respect to .
is satisfiable in B

Z is satisfiable in AZ and is satisfiable in A
Predicates based on the DAG
How to compute the induced length constraints?
Tree(t) : x1 , ..., xn 0 (|t| = ( ni=1 (di 1)xi ) + 1)

P

P
P()
Node (t, t ) : |t| = i=1 |ti |

P
P()
Node (t, t ) : |t| = i=1 |ti |
V()
Tree (t) : t (Node (t, t ) i=1 Tree(ti ))
Constructing Length Constraint
Algorithm 3 (Construction of in B )
Let be (type-complete) data constraint. G the DAG of and
Rl bidirectional closure.
From initial state = add the following
|t| = 1 if t is an atom
|t| = |s|, if (t, s) Rl
|t| = |s|, if (t, s) Rl
Tree(t) if t is an untyped leaf vertex.
|t| = |s|, if (t, s) Rl
Node (t, t ) if t is an -typed vertex with children t
|t| = |s|, if (t, s) Rl
Node (t, t ) if t is an -typed vertex with children t
Tree (t) if t is an -typed leaf vertex.
Some Deductions
Proposition 2
obtained by Algorithm 3 is expressible in a quantifier-free
Presburger formula linear in the size of .
Theorem 1
obtained by Algorithm 3 is the induced length constraint of .
Decision Procedure for a Quantifier-Free B
Input: Z .
0
1 Guess a type completion of .
0
2 Call Algorithm 1 on .
0
Return FAIL if is unsatisfiable; continue otherwise.
0
3 Construct from G using Algorithm 3.
Return SUCCESS if is satisfiable and Z is satisifiable.
Return FAIL otherwise.
Example Application of Algorithm 4
Example
x = cons(car(y),y) |cons(car(y),y)| < 2|car(x)|.
Some Final Remarks
In Theories were quantifiers (,) occurs, we can use

quantifier-elimination to get rid of the quantifiers!
Application on theories with finite number of atoms is also

possible, but its far more complicated!
Thank you for your attention!

Literature
Zhang, T.; Sipma H.B.; Manna,Z.:

Decision Procedures for Recursive Data Structures with

Integer Constraints.
Springer-Verlag, 2004.
Oppen,D.C:
Reasoning About Recursively Defined Data Structures.

Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (Vol. 27),
1980
Nelson,G; Oppen, D.C:
Fast Decision Procedures Based on Congruence

Closure.
Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (Vol. 27),
1980

Decision Procedures For Recursive Data Structures

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Decision Procedures For Recursive Data Structures

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Motivation Problem-Outline The structures Recursive Data Structures The Integrated Theory

Decision Procedures for Recursive Data Structures

Decision Procedures for Logical Theories, SS 2010

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

We want to combine this with Nelsons and Oppens method:

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

We want to combine this with Nelsons and Oppens method:

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

Theory of recursive data structures Th(A )

Presburger Arithmetic Th(AZ )

Overview of this talk:

Overview of this talk:

Overview of this talk:

Overview of this talk:

A decision procedure was presented in the seminar.

Recursive Data Structures

Recursive Data Structures

Recursive Data Structures

a set of atoms A (e.g. A = {a, b, c, ...})

Recursive Data Structures

a set of atoms A (e.g. A = {a, b, c, ...})

a finite set of constructors C (e.g. C = {, , , ...})

Recursive Data Structures

a set of atoms A (e.g. A = {a, b, c, ...})

a finite set of constructors C (e.g. C = {, , , ...})

a finite set of selectors S (e.g. if has arity k > 0:

Recursive Data Structures

a set of atoms A (e.g. A = {a, b, c, ...})

a finite set of constructors C (e.g. C = {, , , ...})

a finite set of selectors S (e.g. if has arity k > 0:

a finite set of testers T (e.g. Is (x) is true iff x is an -term.)

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)

a 6= (x1 , ..., xar () ) a 6= cons(x, y )

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)

(x1 , ..., xar () ) = (y1 , ..., yar () ) cons(x, y ) = cons(z, t)

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)

Axiomatization of A = AList (LISP list structure)

Term t can be represented by a tree Tt , s.t.

Term t can be represented by a tree Tt , s.t.

1 If t is a constant, Tt is a leaf vertex (labeld by t)

Term t can be represented by a tree Tt , s.t.

1 If t is a constant, Tt is a leaf vertex (labeld by t)

2 If t = (t1 , ..., tk ), then Tt is a tree (root labeled by t),

Term t can be represented by a tree Tt , s.t.

1 If t is a constant, Tt is a leaf vertex (labeld by t)

2 If t = (t1 , ..., tk ), then Tt is a tree (root labeled by t),

A directed acyclic graph (DAG) Gt of t obtained from Tt by

G = (V , E ) a DAG (with ordered edges).

G = (V , E ) a DAG (with ordered edges).

G = (V , E ) a DAG (with ordered edges).

G = (V , E ) a DAG (with ordered edges).

G = (V , E ) a DAG (with ordered edges).