Satisfiability modulo theories#Standardization and the SMT-COMP solver competition

Formally speaking, an SMT instance is a formula in first-order logic, where some function and predicate symbols have additional interpretations, and SMT is the problem of determining whether such a formula is satisfiable. In other words, imagine an instance of the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) in which some of the binary variables are replaced by predicates over a suitable set of non-binary variables. A predicate is a binary-valued function of non-binary variables. Example predicates include linear inequalities (e.g., $3x\; +\; 2y\; -\; z\; \backslash geq\; 4$) or equalities involving uninterpreted terms and function symbols (e.g., $f(f(u,\; v),\; v)\; =\; f(u,\; v)$ where $f$ is some unspecified function of two arguments). These predicates are classified according to each respective theory assigned. For instance, linear inequalities over real variables are evaluated using the rules of the theory of linear real arithmetic, whereas predicates involving uninterpreted terms and function symbols are evaluated using the rules of the theory of uninterpreted functions with equality (sometimes referred to as the empty theory). Other theories include the theories of arrays and list structures (useful for modeling and verifying computer programs), and the theory of bit vectors (useful in modeling and verifying hardware designs). Subtheories are also possible: for example, difference logic is a sub-theory of linear arithmetic in which each inequality is restricted to have the form $x\; -\; y\; >\; c$ for variables $x$ and $y$ and constant $c$.

The examples above show the use of Linear Integer Arithmetic over inequalities. Other examples include:

• Satisfiability: Determine if $x\backslash vee\; (y\backslash wedge\; \backslash neg\; z)$ is satisfiable.
• Array access: Find a value for array

  A such that A[0]=5.

• Bit vector arithmetic: Determine if x and y are distinct 3-bit numbers.
• Uninterpreted functions: Find values for x and y such that $f(x)\; =\; 2$ and $g(x)\; =\; 3$.

Most SMT solvers support only quantifier-free fragments of their logics.{{citation needed|date=April 2024}}

There is substantial overlap between SMT solving and automated theorem proving (ATP). Generally, automated theorem provers focus on supporting full first-order logic with quantifiers, whereas SMT solvers focus more on supporting various theories (interpreted predicate symbols). ATPs excel at problems with lots of quantifiers, whereas SMT solvers do well on large problems without quantifiers.{{Cite journal |last1=Blanchette |first1=Jasmin Christian |last2=Böhme |first2=Sascha |last3=Paulson |first3=Lawrence C. |date=2013-06-01 |title=Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-013-9278-5 |journal=Journal of Automated Reasoning |language=en |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=109–128 |doi=10.1007/s10817-013-9278-5 |issn=1573-0670|quote=ATPs and SMT solvers have complementary strengths. The former handle quantifiers more elegantly, whereas the latter excel on large, mostly ground problems.}} The line is blurry enough that some ATPs participate in SMT-COMP, while some SMT solvers participate in CASC.{{Cite journal |last1=Weber |first1=Tjark |last2=Conchon |first2=Sylvain |last3=Déharbe |first3=David |last4=Heizmann |first4=Matthias |last5=Niemetz |first5=Aina |last6=Reger |first6=Giles |date=2019-01-01 |title=The SMT Competition 2015–2018 |journal=Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation |language=en |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=221–259 |doi=10.3233/SAT190123|s2cid=210147712 |quote=In recent years, we have seen a blurring of lines between SMT-COMP and CASC with SMT solvers competing in CASC and ATPs competing in SMT-COMP.|doi-access=free }}

An SMT instance is a generalization of a Boolean SAT instance in which various sets of variables are replaced by predicates from a variety of underlying theories. SMT formulas provide a much richer modeling language than is possible with Boolean SAT formulas. For example, an SMT formula allows one to model the datapath operations of a microprocessor at the word rather than the bit level.

By comparison, answer set programming is also based on predicates (more precisely, on atomic sentences created from atomic formulas). Unlike SMT, answer-set programs do not have quantifiers, and cannot easily express constraints such as linear arithmetic or difference logic—answer set programming is best suited to Boolean problems that reduce to the free theory of uninterpreted functions. Implementing 32-bit integers as bitvectors in answer set programming suffers from most of the same problems that early SMT solvers faced: "obvious" identities such as x+y=y+x are difficult to deduce.

Constraint logic programming does provide support for linear arithmetic constraints, but within a completely different theoretical framework.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}} SMT solvers have also been extended to solve formulas in higher-order logic.{{cite book |first1=Haniel |last1=Barbosa |first2=Andrew |last2=Reynolds |first3=Daniel |last3=El Ouraoui |first4=Cesare |last4=Tinelli |first5=Clark |last5=Barrett |chapter=Extending SMT solvers to higher-order logic |chapter-url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02300986/document |title=Automated Deduction – CADE 27: 27th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Natal, Brazil, August 27–30, 2019, Proceedings |publisher=Springer |date=2019 |isbn=978-3-030-29436-6 |pages=35–54 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-29436-6_3 |s2cid=85443815 |id=hal-02300986}}

Early attempts for solving SMT instances involved translating them to Boolean SAT instances (e.g., a 32-bit integer variable would be encoded by 32 single-bit variables with appropriate weights and word-level operations such as 'plus' would be replaced by lower-level logic operations on the bits) and passing this formula to a Boolean SAT solver. This approach, which is referred to as the eager approach (or bitblasting), has its merits: by pre-processing the SMT formula into an equivalent Boolean SAT formula existing Boolean SAT solvers can be used "as-is" and their performance and capacity improvements leveraged over time. On the other hand, the loss of the high-level semantics of the underlying theories means that the Boolean SAT solver has to work a lot harder than necessary to discover "obvious" facts (such as $x\; +\; y\; =\; y\; +\; x$ for integer addition.) This observation led to the development of a number of SMT solvers that tightly integrate the Boolean reasoning of a DPLL-style search with theory-specific solvers (T-solvers) that handle conjunctions (ANDs) of predicates from a given theory. This approach is referred to as the lazy approach.{{Cite book |last1=Bruttomesso |first1=Roberto |last2=Cimatti |first2=Alessandro |last3=Franzén |first3=Anders |last4=Griggio |first4=Alberto |last5=Hanna |first5=Ziyad |last6=Nadel |first6=Alexander |last7=Palti |first7=Amit |last8=Sebastiani |first8=Roberto |chapter=A Lazy and Layered SMT( $\mathcal{BV}$ ) Solver for Hard Industrial Verification Problems |date=2007 |editor-last=Damm |editor-first=Werner |editor2-last=Hermanns |editor2-first=Holger |title=Computer Aided Verification |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_54 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=4590 |language=en |location=Berlin, Heidelberg |publisher=Springer |pages=547–560 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_54 |isbn=978-3-540-73368-3}}

Dubbed DPLL(T),{{Citation

| first1 = R.

| last1 = Nieuwenhuis

| first2 = A.

| last2 = Oliveras

| first3 = C.

| last3 = Tinelli

| contribution-url = http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~tinelli/papers/NieOT-JACM-06.pdf

| contribution = Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an Abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland Procedure to DPLL(T)

| title = Journal of the ACM

| volume = 53

| pages = 937–977

| year = 2006 |doi=10.1145/1217856.1217859

| issue=6| s2cid = 14058631

}} this architecture gives the responsibility of Boolean reasoning to the DPLL-based SAT solver which, in turn, interacts with a solver for theory T through a well-defined interface. The theory solver only needs to worry about checking the feasibility of conjunctions of theory predicates passed on to it from the SAT solver as it explores the Boolean search space of the formula. For this integration to work well, however, the theory solver must be able to participate in propagation and conflict analysis, i.e., it must be able to infer new facts from already established facts, as well as to supply succinct explanations of infeasibility when theory conflicts arise. In other words, the theory solver must be incremental and backtrackable.

Researchers study which theories or subsets of theories lead to a decidable SMT problem and the computational complexity of decidable cases. Since full first-order logic is only semidecidable, one line of research attempts to find efficient decision procedures for fragments of first-order logic such as effectively propositional logic.{{Cite conference |conference=4th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, Sydney, NSW, Australia|date= August 12–15, 2008|last1=de Moura |first1=Leonardo |last2=Bjørner |first2=Nikolaj |editor-last=Armando |editor-first=Alessandro |editor2-last=Baumgartner |editor2-first=Peter |editor3-last=Dowek |editor3-first=Gilles |chapter=Deciding Effectively Propositional Logic Using DPLL and Substitution Sets |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-71070-7_35 |title=Automated Reasoning |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |language=en |location=Berlin, Heidelberg |publisher=Springer |pages=410–425 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-71070-7_35 |isbn=978-3-540-71070-7}}

Another line of research involves the development of specialized decidable theories, including linear arithmetic over rationals and integers, fixed-width bitvectors,{{Cite book |last1=Hadarean |first1=Liana |last2=Bansal |first2=Kshitij |last3=Jovanović |first3=Dejan |last4=Barrett |first4=Clark |last5=Tinelli |first5=Cesare |chapter=A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors |date=2014 |editor-last=Biere |editor-first=Armin |editor2-last=Bloem |editor2-first=Roderick |title=Computer Aided Verification |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_45 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=8559 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=680–695 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_45 |isbn=978-3-319-08867-9}} floating-point arithmetic (often implemented in SMT solvers via bit-blasting, i.e., reduction to bitvectors),{{Cite conference |last1=Brain |first1=Martin |last2=Schanda |first2=Florian |last3=Sun |first3=Youcheng |date=2019 |editor-last=Vojnar |editor-first=Tomáš |editor2-last=Zhang |editor2-first=Lijun |chapter=Building Better Bit-Blasting for Floating-Point Problems |title=Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems |conference= 25th International Conference, Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6–11, 2019, Proceedings, Part I |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=79–98 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-17462-0_5 |isbn=978-3-030-17462-0|s2cid=92999474 |doi-access=free }}{{Cite conference |last1=Brain |first1=Martin |last2=Niemetz |first2=Aina |last3=Preiner |first3=Mathias |last4=Reynolds |first4=Andrew |last5=Barrett |first5=Clark |last6=Tinelli |first6=Cesare |date=2019 |editor-last=Dillig |editor-first=Isil |editor2-last=Tasiran |editor2-first=Serdar |chapter=Invertibility Conditions for Floating-Point Formulas |title=Computer Aided Verification |conference= 31st International Conference, Computer Aided Verification 2019, New York City, July 15–18, 2019 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=116–136 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-25543-5_8 |isbn=978-3-030-25543-5|s2cid=196613701 |doi-access=free }} strings,{{Cite book |last1=Liang |first1=Tianyi |last2=Tsiskaridze |first2=Nestan |last3=Reynolds |first3=Andrew |last4=Tinelli |first4=Cesare |last5=Barrett |first5=Clark |chapter=A Decision Procedure for Regular Membership and Length Constraints over Unbounded Strings |date=2015 |editor-last=Lutz |editor-first=Carsten |editor2-last=Ranise |editor2-first=Silvio |title=Frontiers of Combining Systems |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-24246-0_9 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=9322 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=135–150 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-24246-0_9 |isbn=978-3-319-24246-0}} (co)-datatypes,{{Cite book |last1=Reynolds |first1=Andrew |last2=Blanchette |first2=Jasmin Christian |chapter=A Decision Procedure for (Co)datatypes in SMT Solvers |date=2015 |editor-last=Felty |editor-first=Amy P. |editor2-last=Middeldorp |editor2-first=Aart |title=Automated Deduction - CADE-25 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_13 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=9195 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=197–213 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_13 |isbn=978-3-319-21401-6}} sequences (used to model dynamic arrays),{{Cite journal |last1=Sheng |first1=Ying |last2=Nötzli |first2=Andres |last3=Reynolds |first3=Andrew |last4=Zohar |first4=Yoni |last5=Dill |first5=David |last6=Grieskamp |first6=Wolfgang |last7=Park |first7=Junkil |last8=Qadeer |first8=Shaz |last9=Barrett |first9=Clark |last10=Tinelli |first10=Cesare |date=2023-09-15 |title=Reasoning About Vectors: Satisfiability Modulo a Theory of Sequences |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-023-09682-2 |journal=Journal of Automated Reasoning |language=en |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=32 |doi=10.1007/s10817-023-09682-2 |s2cid=261829653 |issn=1573-0670}} finite sets and relations,{{Cite book |last1=Bansal |first1=Kshitij |last2=Reynolds |first2=Andrew |last3=Barrett |first3=Clark |last4=Tinelli |first4=Cesare |chapter=A New Decision Procedure for Finite Sets and Cardinality Constraints in SMT |date=2016 |editor-last=Olivetti |editor-first=Nicola |editor2-last=Tiwari |editor2-first=Ashish |title=Automated Reasoning |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_7 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=9706 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=82–98 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_7 |isbn=978-3-319-40229-1}}{{Cite book |last1=Meng |first1=Baoluo |last2=Reynolds |first2=Andrew |last3=Tinelli |first3=Cesare |last4=Barrett |first4=Clark |chapter=Relational Constraint Solving in SMT |date=2017 |editor-last=de Moura |editor-first=Leonardo |title=Automated Deduction – CADE 26 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_10 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=10395 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=148–165 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_10 |isbn=978-3-319-63046-5}} separation logic,{{Cite book |last1=Reynolds |first1=Andrew |last2=Iosif |first2=Radu |last3=Serban |first3=Cristina |last4=King |first4=Tim |chapter=A Decision Procedure for Separation Logic in SMT |date=2016 |editor-last=Artho |editor-first=Cyrille |editor2-last=Legay |editor2-first=Axel |editor3-last=Peled |editor3-first=Doron |title=Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis |chapter-url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01418883/file/Atva2016-2.pdf |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=9938 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=244–261 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-46520-3_16 |isbn=978-3-319-46520-3|s2cid=6753369 }} finite fields,{{Cite book |last1=Ozdemir |first1=Alex |last2=Kremer |first2=Gereon |last3=Tinelli |first3=Cesare |last4=Barrett |first4=Clark |chapter=Satisfiability Modulo Finite Fields |date=2023 |editor-last=Enea |editor-first=Constantin |editor2-last=Lal |editor2-first=Akash |title=Computer Aided Verification |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-37703-7_8 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=13965 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer Nature Switzerland |pages=163–186 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-37703-7_8 |isbn=978-3-031-37703-7|s2cid=257235627 }} and uninterpreted functions among others.

Boolean monotonic theories are a class of theory that support efficient theory propagation and conflict analysis, enabling practical use within DPLL(T) solvers.{{Cite journal |last1=Bayless |first1=Sam |last2=Bayless |first2=Noah |last3=Hoos |first3=Holger |last4=Hu |first4=Alan |date=2015-03-04 |title=SAT Modulo Monotonic Theories |url=https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/9755 |journal=Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence |language=en |volume=29 |issue=1 |doi=10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9755 |s2cid=9567647 |issn=2374-3468|doi-access=free |arxiv=1406.0043 }} Monotonic theories support only boolean variables (boolean is the only sort), and all their functions and predicates {{mvar|p}} obey the axiom

$p(\backslash ldots,b\_\{i-1\},0,b\_\{i+1\},\backslash ldots)\backslash implies\; p(\backslash ldots,b\_\{i-1\},1,b\_\{i+1\},\backslash ldots)$

Examples of monotonic theories include graph reachability, collision detection for convex hulls, minimum cuts, and computation tree logic.{{Cite book |last1=Klenze |first1=Tobias |last2=Bayless |first2=Sam |last3=Hu |first3=Alan J. |chapter=Fast, Flexible, and Minimal CTL Synthesis via SMT |date=2016 |editor-last=Chaudhuri |editor-first=Swarat |editor2-last=Farzan |editor2-first=Azadeh |title=Computer Aided Verification |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-41528-4_8 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=9779 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=136–156 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-41528-4_8 |isbn=978-3-319-41528-4}} Every Datalog program can be interpreted as a monotonic theory.{{Cite journal |last1=Bembenek |first1=Aaron |last2=Greenberg |first2=Michael |last3=Chong |first3=Stephen |date=2023-01-11 |title=From SMT to ASP: Solver-Based Approaches to Solving Datalog Synthesis-as-Rule-Selection Problems |journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages |volume=7 |issue=POPL |pages=7:185–7:217 |doi=10.1145/3571200|s2cid=253525805 |doi-access=free }}

Most of the common SMT approaches support decidable theories. However, many real-world systems, such as an aircraft and its behavior, can only be modelled by means of non-linear arithmetic over the real numbers involving transcendental functions. This fact motivates an extension of the SMT problem to non-linear theories, such as determining whether the following equation is satisfiable:

: $$

\begin{array}{lr}

& (\sin(x)^3 = \cos(\log(y)\cdot x) \vee b \vee -x^2 \geq 2.3y) \wedge \left(\neg b \vee y < -34.4 \vee \exp(x) > {y \over x}\right)

\end{array}

where

: $b\; \backslash in\; \{\backslash mathbb\; B\},\; x,y\; \backslash in\; \{\backslash mathbb\; R\}.$

Such problems are, however, undecidable in general. (On the other hand, the theory of real closed fields, and thus the full first order theory of the real numbers, are decidable using quantifier elimination. This is due to Alfred Tarski.) The first order theory of the natural numbers with addition (but not multiplication), called Presburger arithmetic, is also decidable. Since multiplication by constants can be implemented as nested additions, the arithmetic in many computer programs can be expressed using Presburger arithmetic, resulting in decidable formulas.

Examples of SMT solvers addressing Boolean combinations of theory atoms from undecidable arithmetic theories over the reals are ABsolver,{{Citation

| first1 = A.

| last1 = Bauer

| author-link =

| first2 = M.

| last2 = Pister

| first3 = M.

| last3 = Tautschnig

| contribution = Tool-support for the analysis of hybrid systems and models

| title = Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE'07)

| publisher = IEEE Computer Society

| year = 2007

| doi = 10.1109/DATE.2007.364411

| page = 1

| isbn = 978-3-9810801-2-4

| citeseerx = 10.1.1.323.6807

| s2cid = 9159847

}} which employs a classical DPLL(T) architecture with a non-linear optimization packet as (necessarily incomplete) subordinate theory solver, [http://isat.gforge.avacs.org/ iSAT], building on a unification of DPLL SAT-solving and interval constraint propagation called the iSAT algorithm,{{Citation

| first1 = M.

| last1 = Fränzle

| first2 = C.

| last2 = Herde

| first3 = S.

| last3 = Ratschan

| first4 = T.

| last4 = Schubert

| first5 = T.

| last5 = Teige

| url = http://jsat.ewi.tudelft.nl/content/volume1/JSAT1_11_Fraenzle.pdf

| title = Efficient Solving of Large Non-linear Arithmetic Constraint Systems with Complex Boolean Structure

| issue = 3–4 JSAT Special Issue on SAT/CP Integration

| volume =1 |doi=10.3233/SAT190012

| pages = 209–236 |journal=Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation

| year = 2007 }} and cvc5.{{Cite book |last1=Barbosa |first1=Haniel |last2=Barrett |first2=Clark |last3=Brain |first3=Martin |last4=Kremer |first4=Gereon |last5=Lachnitt |first5=Hanna |last6=Mann |first6=Makai |last7=Mohamed |first7=Abdalrhman |last8=Mohamed |first8=Mudathir |last9=Niemetz |first9=Aina |last10=Nötzli |first10=Andres |last11=Ozdemir |first11=Alex |last12=Preiner |first12=Mathias |last13=Reynolds |first13=Andrew |last14=Sheng |first14=Ying |last15=Tinelli |first15=Cesare |date=2022 |editor-last=Fisman |editor-first=Dana |editor2-last=Rosu |editor2-first=Grigore |chapter=cvc5: A Versatile and Industrial-Strength SMT Solver |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 |title=Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 28th International Conference|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume= 13243|language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=415–442 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 |isbn=978-3-030-99524-9|s2cid=247857361 }}

The table below summarizes some of the features of the many available SMT solvers. The column "SMT-LIB" indicates compatibility with the SMT-LIB language; many systems marked 'yes' may support only older versions of SMT-LIB, or offer only partial support for the language. The column "CVC" indicates support for the {{abbr|CVC|Cooperating Validity Checker}} language. The column "DIMACS" indicates support for the DIMACS [http://www.satcompetition.org/2009/format-benchmarks2009.html format].

Projects differ not only in features and performance, but also in the viability of the surrounding community, its ongoing interest in a project, and its ability to contribute documentation, fixes, tests and enhancements.

There are multiple attempts to describe a standardized interface to SMT solvers (and automated theorem provers, a term often used synonymously). The most prominent is the SMT-LIB standard,{{citation needed|reason=Provide a source for the standard definition; similar for other standards.|date=October 2020}} which provides a language based on S-expressions. Other standardized formats commonly supported are the DIMACS format{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} supported by many Boolean SAT solvers, and the CVC format{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} used by the CVC automated theorem prover.

The SMT-LIB format also comes with a number of standardized benchmarks and has enabled a yearly competition between SMT solvers called SMT-COMP. Initially, the competition took place during the Computer Aided Verification conference (CAV),{{Cite book|last1=Barrett|first1=Clark|last2=de Moura|first2=Leonardo|last3=Stump|first3=Aaron|date=2005|editor-last=Etessami|editor-first=Kousha|editor2-last=Rajamani|editor2-first=Sriram K.|chapter=SMT-COMP: Satisfiability Modulo Theories Competition|chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F11513988_4|title=Computer Aided Verification|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|volume=3576|publisher=Springer|pages=20–23|doi=10.1007/11513988_4|isbn=978-3-540-31686-2}}{{Cite book|last1=Barrett|first1=Clark|last2=de Moura|first2=Leonardo|last3=Ranise|first3=Silvio|last4=Stump|first4=Aaron|last5=Tinelli|first5=Cesare|date=2011|editor-last=Barner|editor-first=Sharon|editor2-last=Harris|editor2-first=Ian|editor3-last=Kroening|editor3-first=Daniel|editor4-last=Raz|editor4-first=Orna|chapter=The SMT-LIB Initiative and the Rise of SMT: (HVC 2010 Award Talk)|title=Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|volume=6504|publisher=Springer|pages=3|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-19583-9_2|bibcode=2011LNCS.6504....3B|isbn=978-3-642-19583-9|doi-access=free}} but as of 2020 the competition is hosted as part of the SMT Workshop, which is affiliated with the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR).{{Cite web|title=SMT-COMP 2020|url=https://smt-comp.github.io/2020/|access-date=2020-10-19|website=SMT-COMP|language=en-US}}

SMT solvers are useful both for verification, proving the correctness of programs, software testing based on symbolic execution, and for synthesis, generating program fragments by searching over the space of possible programs. Outside of software verification, SMT solvers have also been used for type inference{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-96142-2_2|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-96142-2_2|chapter=MaxSMT-Based Type Inference for Python 3|title=Computer Aided Verification|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|year=2018|last1=Hassan|first1=Mostafa|last2=Urban|first2=Caterina|last3=Eilers|first3=Marco|last4=Müller|first4=Peter|volume=10982|pages=12–19|isbn=978-3-319-96141-5}}Loncaric, Calvin, et al. [https://manu.sridharan.net/files/mycroft-preprint.pdf "A practical framework for type inference error explanation."] ACM SIGPLAN Notices 51.10 (2016): 781-799. and for modelling theoretic scenarios, including modelling actor beliefs in nuclear arms control.{{Cite book|last1=Beaumont|first1=Paul|last2=Evans|first2=Neil|last3=Huth|first3=Michael|last4=Plant|first4=Tom|title=Computer Security -- ESORICS 2015 |chapter=Confidence Analysis for Nuclear Arms Control: SMT Abstractions of Bayesian Belief Networks |date=2015|editor-last=Pernul|editor-first=Günther|editor2-last=Y A Ryan|editor2-first=Peter|editor3-last=Weippl|editor3-first=Edgar|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science|volume=9326|publisher=Springer |pages=521–540|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-24174-6_27|isbn=978-3-319-24174-6|doi-access=free}}

Computer-aided verification of computer programs often uses SMT solvers. A common technique is to translate preconditions, postconditions, loop conditions, and assertions into SMT formulas in order to determine if all properties can hold.

There are many verifiers built on top of the Z3 SMT solver. [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/boogie/ Boogie] is an intermediate verification language that uses Z3 to automatically check simple imperative programs. The [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vcc-a-verifier-for-concurrent-c/ VCC] verifier for concurrent C uses Boogie, as well as [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/dafny/ Dafny] for imperative object-based programs, [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/chalice/ Chalice] for concurrent programs, and [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/specsharp/ Spec#] for C#. [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/fstar/ F*] is a dependently typed language that uses Z3 to find proofs; the compiler carries these proofs through to produce proof-carrying bytecode. The [http://viper.ethz.ch Viper verification infrastructure] encodes verification conditions to Z3. The [https://hackage.haskell.org/package/sbv sbv] library provides SMT-based verification of Haskell programs, and lets the user choose among a number of solvers such as Z3, ABC, Boolector, cvc5, MathSAT and Yices.

There are also many verifiers built on top of the [http://alt-ergo.ocamlpro.com/ Alt-Ergo] SMT solver. Here is a list of mature applications:

• [http://why3.lri.fr/ Why3], a platform for deductive program verification, uses Alt-Ergo as its main prover;
• CAVEAT, a C-verifier developed by CEA and used by Airbus; Alt-Ergo was included in the qualification DO-178C of one of its recent aircraft;
• Frama-C, a framework to analyse C-code, uses Alt-Ergo in the Jessie and WP plugins (dedicated to "deductive program verification");
• SPARK uses CVC4 and Alt-Ergo (behind GNATprove) to automate the verification of some assertions in SPARK 2014;
• Atelier-B can use Alt-Ergo instead of its main prover (increasing success from 84% to 98% on the [http://alt-ergo.lri.fr/documents/ABZ-2014.pdf ANR Bware project benchmarks]);
• Rodin, a B-method framework developed by Systerel, can use Alt-Ergo as a back-end;
• [http://cubicle.lri.fr/ Cubicle], an open source model checker for verifying safety properties of array-based transition systems.
• [https://www.easycrypt.info/ EasyCrypt], a toolset for reasoning about relational properties of probabilistic computations with adversarial code.

Many SMT solvers implement a common interface format called [http://smt-lib.org/ SMTLIB2] (such files usually have the extension ".smt2"). The [https://ucsd-progsys.github.io/liquidhaskell-blog/ LiquidHaskell]

tool implements a refinement type based verifier for Haskell that can use any SMTLIB2 compliant solver, e.g. cvc5, MathSat, or Z3.

An important application of SMT solvers is symbolic execution for analysis and testing of programs (e.g., concolic testing), aimed particularly at finding security vulnerabilities.{{citation needed|date=November 2021}} Example tools in this category include [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/pg/public_psfiles/ndss2008.pdf SAGE] from Microsoft Research, [https://klee.github.io/ KLEE], [http://s2e.epfl.ch/ S2E], and [https://triton.quarkslab.com Triton]. SMT solvers that have been used for symbolic-execution applications include [https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3 Z3], [https://sites.google.com/site/stpfastprover/ STP] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150406115407/https://sites.google.com/site/stpfastprover/ |date=2015-04-06 }}, the [https://z3string.github.io/ Z3str family of solvers], and [http://fmv.jku.at/boolector/ Boolector].{{citation needed|date=November 2021}}

SMT solvers have been integrated with proof assistants, including Coq{{Cite book |last1=Ekici |first1=Burak |last2=Mebsout |first2=Alain |last3=Tinelli |first3=Cesare |last4=Keller |first4=Chantal |last5=Katz |first5=Guy |last6=Reynolds |first6=Andrew |last7=Barrett |first7=Clark |date=2017 |editor-last=Majumdar |editor-first=Rupak |editor2-last=Kunčak |editor2-first=Viktor |chapter=SMTCoq: A Plug-In for Integrating SMT Solvers into Coq |chapter-url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01669345/file/main.pdf |title= Computer Aided Verification, 29th International Conference |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science | volume= 10427 |language=en |location=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=126–133 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-63390-9_7 |isbn=978-3-319-63390-9|s2cid=206701576 }} and Isabelle/HOL.{{Cite journal |last1=Blanchette |first1=Jasmin Christian |last2=Böhme |first2=Sascha |last3=Paulson |first3=Lawrence C. |date=2013-06-01 |title=Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-013-9278-5 |journal=Journal of Automated Reasoning |language=en |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=109–128 |doi=10.1007/s10817-013-9278-5 |issn=1573-0670}}

• Answer set programming
• Automated theorem proving
• SAT solver
• First-order logic
• Theory of pure equality

{{refbegin}}

• {{cite book |first1=C. |last1=Barrett |first2=R. |last2=Sebastiani |first3=S. |last3=Seshia |first4=C. |last4=Tinelli |chapter=Satisfiability Modulo Theories |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=shLvAgAAQBAJ&q=%22Satisfiability+Modulo+Theories%22 |editor1-first=A. |editor1-last=Biere |editor2-first=M.J.H. |editor2-last=Heule |editor3-first=H. |editor3-last=van Maaren |editor4-first=T. |editor4-last=Walsh |title=Handbook of Satisfiability |publisher=IOS Press |series=Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications |volume=185 |date=2009 |isbn= 9781607503767|pages=825–885 |url=}}
• {{cite thesis |first=Vijay |last=Ganesh |title=Decision Procedures for Bit-Vectors, Arrays and Integers |date=September 2007 |type=PhD |publisher=Computer Science Department, Stanford University |url=https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~vganesh/Publications_files/vg2007-PhD-STANFORD.pdf}}
• {{cite book |first1=Susmit |last1=Jha |first2=Rhishikesh |last2=Limaye |first3=Sanjit A. |last3=Seshia |chapter=Beaver: Engineering an efficient SMT solver for bit-vector arithmetic |chapter-url= |title=Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification |publisher= |location= |date=2009 |isbn=978-3-642-02658-4 |pages=668–674 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_53}}
• {{cite book |first1=R.E. |last1=Bryant |first2=S.M. |last2=German |first3=M.N. |last3=Velev |chapter=Microprocessor Verification Using Efficient Decision Procedures for a Logic of Equality with Uninterpreted Functions |chapter-url=https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/Microprocessor_Verification_Using_Efficient_Decision_Procedures_for_a_Logic_of_Equality_with_Uninterpreted_Functions/6607286/files/12097826.pdf |editor= |title=Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods |publisher= |location= |date=1999 |isbn= |pages=1–13 |url=}}, pp. , .
• {{cite journal |first1=M. |last1=Davis |first2=H. |last2=Putnam |title=A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory |journal=Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery |volume=7 |issue= 3|pages=201–215 |date=1960 |doi=10.1145/321033.321034 |s2cid=31888376 |url=|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |first1=M. |last1=Davis |first2=G. |last2=Logemann |first3=D. |last3=Loveland |title=A Machine Program for Theorem-Proving |journal=Communications of the ACM |volume=5 |issue=7 |pages=394–397 |date=1962 |doi=10.1145/368273.368557 |hdl=2027/mdp.39015095248095 |s2cid=15866917 |url=|hdl-access=free }}
• {{cite book |first1=D. |last1=Kroening |first2=O. |last2=Strichman |title=Decision Procedures — an algorithmic point of view |publisher=Springer |series=Theoretical Computer Science series |date=2008 |isbn=978-3-540-74104-6 |pages= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=anJsH3Dq5BIC&q=SMT}}
• {{cite journal |first1=G.-J. |last1=Nam |first2=K.A. |last2=Sakallah |first3=R. |last3=Rutenbar |title=A New FPGA Detailed Routing Approach via Search-Based Boolean Satisfiability |journal=IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems |volume=21 |issue=6 |pages=674–684 |date=2002 |doi=10.1109/TCAD.2002.1004311 |url=}}
• [http://smtlib.org/ SMT-LIB: The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library]
• [http://www.smtcomp.org SMT-COMP: The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Competition]
• [http://www.decision-procedures.org: Decision procedures - an algorithmic point of view]
• {{cite journal |first=R. |last=Sebastiani |title=Lazy Satisfiability Modulo Theories |journal=Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation |volume=3 |issue=3–4 |pages=141–224 |date=2007 |doi=10.3233/SAT190034 |citeseerx=10.1.1.100.221}}

{{refend}}

• This article was originally adapted from a column in the ACM [http://www.sigda.org SIGDA] [https://web.archive.org/web/20070208034716/http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html e-newsletter] by Karem A. Sakallah. The original text is [http://archive.sigda.org/newsletter/2006/061215.txt available here].

{{Mathematical logic}}

Category:Constraint programming

Category:Electronic design automation

Category:Formal methods

Category:Logic in computer science

Category:NP-complete problems

Category:Satisfiability problems