pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.05928 · v9 · submitted 2024-03-09 · 💻 cs.LO

Structure-Aware Computing, Partial Quantifier Elimination And SAT

Eugene Goldberg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 03:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LO
keywords structure-aware computingpartial quantifier eliminationSAT solvinghardware verificationproperty generationequivalence checkingmodel checking
0
0 comments X

The pith

Partial quantifier elimination performs structure-aware computing by exploiting formula specifics in verification tasks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that semantic results in verification can be obtained faster by deliberately using the particular structure of a given formula F instead of methods that apply equally to any logically equivalent formula. It demonstrates this through partial quantifier elimination, a generalization of quantifier elimination, applied to three specific problems: property generation, equivalence checking, and model checking. The work further claims that the task of solving PQE instances can itself be accelerated by incorporating structure-aware techniques, with an example drawn from SAT solving methods.

Core claim

Partial quantifier elimination can be used for structure-aware computing by intentionally exploiting the specifics of a formula F to obtain a semantic result, as shown by its application to property generation, equivalence checking, and model checking. In addition, PQE solving can benefit from structure-aware approaches, with a technique introduced via SAT solving that can be applied more broadly.

What carries the argument

Partial quantifier elimination (PQE), a generalization of quantifier elimination that obtains semantic results by using the structure of the input formula rather than its logical equivalence class alone.

If this is right

  • PQE can generate verification properties by using the structure of the input formula.
  • PQE can perform equivalence checking between hardware designs via structure-aware computation.
  • PQE can carry out model checking by exploiting formula structure.
  • PQE solving itself can be accelerated by adapting structure-aware techniques from SAT solving.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If structure-aware PQE scales, similar exploitation of formula specifics could apply to other decision procedures in logic beyond the three listed tasks.
  • Hybrid solvers might combine PQE with existing SAT methods to handle larger verification instances by switching between structure-aware and general modes.
  • The distinction between structure-aware and structure-oblivious computation could be tested on random formula families to measure average-case speed differences.

Load-bearing premise

Intentionally exploiting the specifics of a formula F produces a correct semantic result faster than algorithms that work for all formulas logically equivalent to F.

What would settle it

A timing comparison on the same set of verification instances showing that a standard SAT or quantifier elimination procedure without intentional structure use finishes at least one of the three tasks faster than the corresponding PQE-based structure-aware method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.05928 by Eugene Goldberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Proving equivalence by the CPpqe method Hence, to find if M′ , M′′ are equivalent, it suffices to take Eq out of ∃Z[Eq ∧ F]. Remark￾ably, PQE produces the same result H(w ′ , w′′) as full QE on ∃X[Eq ∧ F]. The only exception, occurring when M′ and M′′ are a constant, can be ruled out by a few simple SAT checks. Note that Eq ∧ F is semantically the same as the formula F ∗ above used in CP. How￾ever, CPpqe c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SATsa im If SATsa im does not terminate after BCP, it runs a while loop where literal redundancies of clauses of F are checked (lines 4-15). The loop starts with pick￾ing a clause C and a literal l of C (line 5). We assume here that l is unassigned and not proved redundant in subspace #»q yet. Then SATsa im is recursively called to check the satisfiability of F in subspace #»q ∪ #»q ∗ where #»q ∗ specifies… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Computing Rel i in CPpqe In Section 6, we recalled CPpqe , a method of equivalence checking by PQE intro￾duced in [22]. In this appendix, we de￾scribe how CPpqe computes the for￾mula Rel i specifying relations between cut points of Cut i . We reuse the nota￾tion of Section 6. Let formula Fi specify the gates of M′ and M′′ located between their inputs and Cut i (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Execution Of SAT sa im In the while loop, SATsa im first calls PickClsLit to pick a clause of F and a literal of this clause (line 3). Assume the clause C1 and its literal x1 are picked. To check the redundancy of x1 in C1, SATsa im recursively calls itself with #»q ∗ = (x1 = 1, x2 = 0) specifying the x1-vicinity of C1 (line 4). The new activation of SATsa im calls BCP to assign #»q ∗ and sat￾isfy the unit… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Typically, a practical algorithm of hardware verification obtains a semantic result by being applied to a particular formula $F$. That is, although this algorithm uses the specifics of $F$ (sometimes inadvertently), its result holds for all formulas logically equivalent to $F$. We refer to computations that get a semantic result by intentionally exploiting the specifics of $F$ as structure-aware computing (SAC). Arguably, using SAC allows one to get a semantic result faster. We show that partial quantifier elimination (PQE), a generalization of quantifier elimination, can be used for SAC. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, we explain how SAC is performed by PQE by the example of three verification problems (property generation, equivalence checking and model checking). Second, we argue that PQE solving itself can benefit from SAC. We use SAT solving to introduce a technique that can be also applied in structure-aware PQE solving.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces structure-aware computing (SAC) as the practice of obtaining semantic results for a formula F by intentionally exploiting its specific structure, in contrast to standard algorithms whose results hold for all logically equivalent formulas. It claims that partial quantifier elimination (PQE) realizes SAC for three hardware verification tasks (property generation, equivalence checking, model checking) and that PQE solving itself can benefit from SAC via a SAT-based technique.

Significance. If the promised concrete constructions and performance arguments hold, the work could supply a useful conceptual lens for designing verification algorithms that deliberately leverage formula structure rather than treating all equivalent formulas uniformly; the SAT-based technique for structure-aware PQE is a concrete starting point that might be reusable in other QBF or SAT contexts.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that SAC 'allows one to get a semantic result faster' is presented as arguable but is load-bearing for the motivation to use PQE for SAC; the manuscript must supply explicit comparisons (runtime or proof size) showing that the structure-exploiting PQE variants outperform standard PQE or SAT solvers on the three listed problems.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (second objective): the SAT-based technique for structure-aware PQE is introduced but no derivation, pseudocode, or correctness argument is visible; the paper must detail how the technique exploits structure and why it remains sound when applied only to the given F rather than to all equivalent formulas.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the two major comments point by point below, committing to revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without altering its core conceptual contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that SAC 'allows one to get a semantic result faster' is presented as arguable but is load-bearing for the motivation to use PQE for SAC; the manuscript must supply explicit comparisons (runtime or proof size) showing that the structure-exploiting PQE variants outperform standard PQE or SAT solvers on the three listed problems.

    Authors: The abstract qualifies the claim with 'arguably' precisely to indicate it is a motivating hypothesis rather than an empirically demonstrated fact. The manuscript's primary objective is to establish the conceptual link between PQE and SAC for the three verification problems; it does not contain runtime or proof-size experiments comparing structure-exploiting PQE against standard solvers. We will revise the abstract and add a short discussion section that explains, on structural grounds, why exploiting the specific formula F can be expected to yield efficiency gains in these tasks, while removing any implication that such gains have been measured in the present work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (second objective): the SAT-based technique for structure-aware PQE is introduced but no derivation, pseudocode, or correctness argument is visible; the paper must detail how the technique exploits structure and why it remains sound when applied only to the given F rather than to all equivalent formulas.

    Authors: The manuscript introduces the SAT-based technique as a way to realize structure-aware PQE solving. To make the presentation self-contained, we will add a dedicated subsection containing (i) pseudocode of the technique, (ii) a derivation showing how it uses the syntactic structure of the input formula F, and (iii) a correctness argument establishing that soundness holds for the given F without requiring the result to be valid for every logically equivalent formula. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper defines structure-aware computing (SAC) as computations obtaining semantic results by intentionally exploiting formula specifics, then states that partial quantifier elimination (PQE) realizes SAC for three verification problems and that PQE can itself benefit from SAC. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided abstract or described content. The argument proceeds by conceptual definition followed by illustrative examples and a SAT-based technique introduction, without any step reducing a claimed result to its own inputs by construction or relying on load-bearing self-citation. The chain is therefore self-contained at the definitional and applicative level.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger entries are therefore minimal and provisional.

axioms (1)
  • standard math PQE is a generalization of quantifier elimination
    Stated directly in the abstract
invented entities (1)
  • structure-aware computing (SAC) no independent evidence
    purpose: To obtain semantic results faster by intentionally exploiting formula specifics
    Introduced and defined in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5677 in / 1082 out tokens · 23462 ms · 2026-05-24T03:18:25.009213+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Extensional concepts in intensional type theory,

    M. Hofmann, “Extensional concepts in intensional type theory,” Doctoral Disser- tation, University of Edinburgh, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Intensional and extensional aspects of computation: From computability and complexity to program analysis and security (NII shonan meeting 2018-1),

    R. Giacobazzi, D. Pavlovic, and T. Terauchi, “Intensional and extensional aspects of computation: From computability and complexity to program analysis and security (NII shonan meeting 2018-1),”NII Shonan Meet. Rep., 2018. [Online]. Available: https://shonan.nii.ac.jp/seminars/115/

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Partial quantifier elimination,

    E. Goldberg and P. Manolios, “Partial quantifier elimination,” inProc. of HVC-14. Springer-Verlag, 2014, pp. 148–164

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Partial quantifier elimination and property generation,

    E. Goldberg, “Partial quantifier elimination and property generation,” inEnea, C., Lal, A. (eds) Computer Aided Verification, CAV-23,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Part II, vol. 13965, 2023, pp. 110–131

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    New methods for 3-sat decision and worst-case analysis,

    O. Kullmann, “New methods for 3-sat decision and worst-case analysis,”Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 223, no. 1-2, pp. 1–72, 1999

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Applying sat methods in unbounded symbolic model checking,

    K. McMillan, “Applying sat methods in unbounded symbolic model checking,” in Proc. of CAV-02. Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 250–264

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Quantifier elimination via functional composition,

    J. Jiang, “Quantifier elimination via functional composition,” inProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, ser. CAV-09, 2009, pp. 383–397

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Existential quantification as incremental sat,

    J. Brauer, A. King, and J. Kriener, “Existential quantification as incremental sat,” ser. CAV-11, 2011, pp. 191–207

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Solving qbf with free variables,

    W. Klieber, M. Janota, J.Marques-Silva, and E. Clarke, “Solving qbf with free variables,” inCP, 2013, pp. 415–431

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Playing with quantified satisfaction,

    N. Bjorner and M. Janota, “Playing with quantified satisfaction,” inLPAR, 2015

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Incremental determinization for quantifier elimination and functional synthesis,

    M. Rabe, “Incremental determinization for quantifier elimination and functional synthesis,” inCAV, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Quantifier elimination by dependency sequents,

    E. Goldberg and P. Manolios, “Quantifier elimination by dependency sequents,” inFMCAD-12, 2012, pp. 34–44

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Quantifier elimination via clause redundancy,

    ——, “Quantifier elimination via clause redundancy,” inFMCAD-13, 2013, pp. 85–92

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Partial quantifier elimination by certificate clauses,

    E. Goldberg, “Partial quantifier elimination by certificate clauses,” Tech. Rep. arXiv:2003.09667 [cs.LO], 2020

    work page arXiv 2003

  15. [15]

    The source ofDS-PQE, http://eigold.tripod.com/software/ds-pqe.tar.gz

    work page

  16. [16]

    The source ofEG-PQE +, http://eigold.tripod.com/software/eg-pqe-pl.1.0.tar.gz

    work page

  17. [17]

    A machine program for theorem prov- ing,

    M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland, “A machine program for theorem prov- ing,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 394–397, July 1962

    work page 1962

  18. [18]

    Grasp – a new search algorithm for satisfiabil- ity,

    J. Marques-Silva and K. Sakallah, “Grasp – a new search algorithm for satisfiabil- ity,” inICCAD-96, 1996, pp. 220–227

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    Three uses of the herbrand-gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory,

    W. Craig, “Three uses of the herbrand-gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 269–285, 1957

    work page 1957

  20. [20]

    Interpolation and sat-based model checking,

    K. McMillan, “Interpolation and sat-based model checking,” inCAV-03. Springer, 2003, pp. 1–13

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    On the complexity of derivation in the propositional calculus,

    G. Tseitin, “On the complexity of derivation in the propositional calculus,”Zapiski nauchnykh seminarov LOMI, vol. 8, pp. 234–259, 1968, english translation of this volume: Consultants Bureau, N.Y., 1970, pp. 115–125

    work page 1968

  22. [22]

    Equivalence checking by logic relaxation,

    E. Goldberg, “Equivalence checking by logic relaxation,” inFMCAD-16, 2016, pp. 49–56

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Equivalence Checking Using Cuts And Heaps,

    A. Kuehlmann and F. Krohm, “Equivalence Checking Using Cuts And Heaps,” DAC, pp. 263–268, 1997

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    Using SAT for combinational equiva- lence checking,

    E. Goldberg, M. Prasad, and R. Brayton, “Using SAT for combinational equiva- lence checking,” inDATE-01, 2001, pp. 114–121

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    Improvements to combi- national equivalence checking,

    A. Mishchenko, S. Chatterjee, R. Brayton, and N. Een, “Improvements to combi- national equivalence checking,” inICCAD-06, 2006, pp. 836–843

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    ABC: A system for sequential synthesis and veri- fication,

    B. L. Synthesis and V. Group, “ABC: A system for sequential synthesis and veri- fication,” 2017, http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/∼alanmi/abc

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Symbolic model checking using sat procedures instead of bdds,

    A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, M. Fujita, and Y. Zhu, “Symbolic model checking using sat procedures instead of bdds,” inDAC, 1999, pp. 317–320

    work page 1999

  28. [28]

    Clarke, O

    E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled,Model checking. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1999

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    McMillan,Symbolic Model Checking

    K. McMillan,Symbolic Model Checking. Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993

    work page 1993

  30. [30]

    Efficient computation of recurrence diameters,

    D. Kroening and O.Strichman, “Efficient computation of recurrence diameters,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, 2002, p. 298–309

    work page 2002

  31. [31]

    Chaff: engineering an efficient sat solver,

    M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik, “Chaff: engineering an efficient sat solver,” inDAC-01, New York, NY, USA, 2001, pp. 530–535

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    Resolution theorem proving,

    L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger, “Resolution theorem proving,” inHandbook of Automated Reasoning, A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, Eds. North-Holland, 2001, vol. I, ch. 2, pp. 19–99

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    Novikov, Private communication

    Y. Novikov, Private communication

    work page

  34. [34]

    Lower bounds for set-blocked clauses proofs,

    E. Yolcu, “Lower bounds for set-blocked clauses proofs,” Tech. Rep. arXiv:2401.11266 [cs.LO], 2024. Appendix A Interpolation For Satisfiable Formulas Traditionally, interpolation is introduced via the notion of implication. Suppose that a formulaA(X, Y) implies a formula B(Y, Z) whereX, Y, Zare disjoint sets of variables. Then there exists a formulaI(Y) c...

    work page arXiv 2024