Quantifiers #6550
Merged
Quantifiers #6550
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
kroening
commented
Dec 27, 2021
kroening
commented
- Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
- Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
- The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
- Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
- n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
- My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
- n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.
kroening
force-pushed
the
quantifiers
branch
from
dd74a57 to
7dc065f
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #6550 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 75.98% 75.98%
========================================
Files 1578 1578
Lines 181044 181058 +14
========================================
+ Hits 137563 137579 +16
+ Misses 43481 43479 -2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
kroening
requested review from
martin-cs,
peterschrammel and
tautschnig
as code owners
kroening
force-pushed
the
quantifiers
branch
from
4956360 to
84ff409
Compare
tautschnig
requested changes
Dec 29, 2021
| new_variables.pop_back(); | ||
| auto new_expression = | ||
| quantifier_exprt(expr.id(), expr.variables().back(), expr.where()); | ||
| return eager_quantifier_instantiation(new_expression, ns); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function doesn't exist at the point of this commit (else line 142 should already say "eager_quantifier_instantiation").
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will go way once rebased on #6551.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now fixed with separate commit.
| auto new_variables = expr.variables(); | ||
| new_variables.pop_back(); | ||
| auto new_expression = | ||
| quantifier_exprt(expr.id(), expr.variables().back(), expr.where()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So what about all the other variables, don't they just get dropped? Shouldn't expr.where() be replaced by quantifier_exprt{expr.id(), new_variables, expr.where()}?
Comment on lines
191
to
192
| else | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could reduce code churn by removing the else here?
Comment on lines
2
to
13
| ;(define-fun q2 () Bool (exists ((b (_ BitVec 8))) (not (= b #x00)))) | ||
|
|
||
| ;(define-fun q3 () Bool (not (forall ((b (_ BitVec 8))) (= b #x00)))) | ||
| ;(define-fun q4 () Bool (not (forall ((b (_ BitVec 8))) (not (= b #x00))))) | ||
|
|
||
| ;(define-fun q5 () Bool (exists ((a (_ BitVec 8)) (b (_ BitVec 8))) (= a b))) | ||
| ;(define-fun q6 () Bool (not (forall ((a (_ BitVec 8)) (b (_ BitVec 8))) (= a b)))) | ||
|
|
||
| ;(define-fun q7 () Bool (forall ((a (_ BitVec 8))) (exists ((b (_ BitVec 8))) (= a b)))) | ||
|
|
||
| ; the above are all valid, and we assert one of them is not | ||
| ;(assert (not (and q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are all of these commented out?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now marked as a KNOWNBUG test.
This fixes a typo in the name of the directory of one of the tests.
Quantifier instantiation may happen eagerly, or incrementally, and renaming this function clarifies that this function is doing eager instantiation.
This adds support for eager instantiation of forall or exists quantifier expressions that have more than one symbol using the trivial rewrite.
This adds support for eager instantiation of quantifiers over booleans, using George Boole's Proposition II.
The quantifier_exprt offers a convenient wrapper for doing the instantiation.
The test currently fails, and will need an implementation.
kroening
force-pushed
the
quantifiers
branch
from
84ff409 to
e4c5999
Compare
tautschnig
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2021
Comment on lines
+1
to
+7
| KNOWNBUG | ||
| bv-quantifier-valid.smt2 | ||
|
|
||
| ^EXIT=0$ | ||
| ^SIGNAL=0$ | ||
| ^unsat$ | ||
| -- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be helpful for either this file or the commit message to include an explanation what exactly is missing here.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.