skip to main content
10.1145/3049797.3049819acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SMC: Satisfiability Modulo Convex Optimization

Published:13 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We address the problem of determining the satisfiability of a Boolean combination of convex constraints over the real numbers, which is common in the context of hybrid system verification and control. We first show that a special type of logic formulas, termed monotone Satisfiability Modulo Convex (SMC) formulas, is the most general class of formulas over Boolean and nonlinear real predicates that reduce to convex programs for any satisfying assignment of the Boolean variables. For this class of formulas, we develop a new satisfiability modulo convex optimization procedure that uses a lazy combination of SAT solving and convex programming to provide a satisfying assignment or determine that the formula is unsatisfiable. Our approach can then leverage the efficiency and the formal guarantees of state-of-the-art algorithms in both the Boolean and convex analysis domains. A key step in lazy satisfiability solving is the generation of succinct infeasibility proofs that can support conflict-driven learning and decrease the number of iterations between the SAT and the theory solver. For this purpose, we propose a suite of algorithms that can trade complexity with the minimality of the generated infeasibility certificates. Remarkably, we show that a minimal infeasibility certificate can be generated by simply solving one convex program for a sub-class of SMC formulas, namely ordered positive unate SMC formulas, that have additional monotonicity properties. Perhaps surprisingly, ordered positive unate formulas appear themselves very frequently in a variety of practical applications. By exploiting the properties of monotone SMC formulas, we can then build and demonstrate effective and scalable decision procedures for problems in hybrid system verification and control, including secure state estimation and robotic motion planning.

References

  1. J. N. Hooker, "Logic, optimization, and constraint programming," INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 295--321, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Barrett, R. Sebastiani, S. A. Seshia, and C. Tinelli, Satisfiability Modulo Theories, Chapter in Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Ratschan, "Efficient solving of quantified inequality constraints over the real numbers," ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 723--748, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Gao, J. Avigad, and E. M. Clarke, "δ-complete decision procedures for satisfiability over the reals," in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Automated Reasoning, 2012, pp. 286--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge Univesity Press, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. R. Nieuwenhuis, A. Oliveras, and C. Tinelli, "Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis--Putnam--Logemann--Loveland procedure to DPLL(T)," J. ACM, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 937--977, Nov. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Cimatti et al., "Satisfiability modulo the theory of costs: Foundations and applications," in Proc. TACAS, 2010, pp. 99--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Y. Li et al., "Symbolic optimization with SMT solvers," in ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 49, no. 1, 2014, pp. 607--618. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Bauer, M. Pister, and M. Tautschnig, "Tool-support for the analysis of hybrid systems and models," in Proc. of DATE, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. L. De Moura and N. Björner, "Z3: An efficient SMT solver," in Proc. Int. Conf. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 2008, pp. 337--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. Franzle et al., "Efficient solving of large non-linear arithmetic constraint systems with complex Boolean structure," in JSAT Special Issue on SAT/CP Integration, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Gao, S. Kong, and E. M. Clarke, "dReal: An SMT solver for nonlinear theories over the reals," 2013, vol. 7898, pp. 208--214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. Nuzzo et al., "CalCS: SMT solving for non-linear convex constraints," in Proc. Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, Oct. 2010, pp. 71--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Shoukry et al., "Sound and complete state estimation for linear dynamical systems under sensor attack using satisfiability modulo theory solving," in Proc. American Control Conference, 2015, pp. 3818--3823. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Y. Shoukry et al., "Scalable lazy SMT-based motion planning," in Proc. Int. Conf. Decision and Control, 2016, pp. 6683--6688. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. E. Plaku and S. Karaman, "Motion planning with temporal-logic specifications: Progress and challenges," AI Communications, no. Preprint, pp. 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. Pnueli, "The temporal logic of programs," in FOCS, 1977, pp. 46--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Grant, S. Boyd, and Y. Ye, "Disciplined convex programming," in Global optimization. Springer, 2006, pp. 155--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y. Shoukry, P. Nuzzo, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. Seshia, G. Pappas, and P. Tabuada, "SMC: Satisfiability modulo convex optimization," ArXiv e-prints, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. W. Chinneck and E. W. Dravnieks, "Locating minimal infeasible constraint sets in linear programs," ORSA Journal on Computing, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 157--168, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. A. Bemporad and M. Morari, "Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints," Automatica, vol. 35, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. (2012, Feb.) IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimizer. [Online]. Available: www.ibm.com/software/integration/optimization/cplex-optimizer/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. "The international SAT competitions web page." http://www.satcompetition.org/, accessed: 2016--10-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. SMC: Satisfiability Modulo Convex Optimization

                            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
                            • Published in

                              cover image ACM Conferences
                              HSCC '17: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control
                              April 2017
                              288 pages
                              ISBN:9781450345903
                              DOI:10.1145/3049797

                              Copyright © 2017 ACM

                              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                              Publisher

                              Association for Computing Machinery

                              New York, NY, United States

                              Publication History

                              • Published: 13 April 2017

                              Permissions

                              Request permissions about this article.

                              Request Permissions

                              Check for updates

                              Qualifiers

                              • research-article

                              Acceptance Rates

                              HSCC '17 Paper Acceptance Rate29of76submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate153of373submissions,41%

                            PDF Format

                            View or Download as a PDF file.

                            PDF

                            eReader

                            View online with eReader.

                            eReader