More aggressive techniques for reconstructing proofs of strings inferences #10680
Conversation
This file contains 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
HanielB
requested changes
Apr 29, 2024
| @@ -74,7 +76,7 @@ bool TheoryProofStepBuffer::applyPredTransform(Node src, | |||
| bool useExpected) | |||
| { | |||
| // symmetric equalities | |||
| if (d_autoSym && CDProof::isSame(src, tgt)) | |||
| if (src == tgt || (d_autoSym && CDProof::isSame(src, tgt))) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if d_autoSym is false wouldn't you want to add the symmetry step explicitly?
| if (success) | ||
| { | ||
| // If we were successful, now go back and justify the conversion to | ||
| // original forms, which should be trivial. |
Comment on lines
+174
to
+175
| // see if src rewrites to (and ... tgt ...). In this case, we can | ||
| // infer tgt via AND_ELIM. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you give an insight why this may happen? Looks odd that it would.
Comment on lines
+911
to
+919
| if (!eqs[i][1].isConst() | ||
| && eqs[i][1].getKind() != Kind::STRING_CONCAT) | ||
| { | ||
| subs.push_back(eqs[i][1].eqNode(eqs[i][0])); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| subs.push_back(eqs[i]); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| if (!eqs[i][1].isConst() | |
| && eqs[i][1].getKind() != Kind::STRING_CONCAT) | |
| { | |
| subs.push_back(eqs[i][1].eqNode(eqs[i][0])); | |
| } | |
| else | |
| { | |
| subs.push_back(eqs[i]); | |
| } | |
| subs.push_back(!eqs[i][1].isConst() | |
| && eqs[i][1].getKind() != Kind::STRING_CONCAT | |
| ? eqs[i][1].eqNode(eqs[i][0]) | |
| : eqs[i]); |
Also, can you add an insight of what is going on here?
| } | ||
| Trace("strings-ipc-prefix") << "- Via trans: " << curr << std::endl; | ||
| } | ||
| if (curr.isNull()) | ||
| { | ||
| break; | ||
| } | ||
| std::reverse(subs.begin(), subs.end()); |
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2024
A simpler alternative for #10680 that suffices for a problem set of interest.
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.
Introduces a new utility method for inferring whether a predicate follows from another by substitution+rewriting+AND_ELIM.
Also adds missing cases of string inferences that were not covered by proof reconstruction.
This reduces the number of unjustified THEORY_INFERENCE in our regressions from 1820 -> 1810.