291 lines
13 KiB
C++
291 lines
13 KiB
C++
// Copyright 2010-2025 Google LLC
|
||
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
||
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
||
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
||
//
|
||
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
||
//
|
||
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
||
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
||
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
||
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
||
// limitations under the License.
|
||
|
||
#include "ortools/sat/lrat_checker.h"
|
||
|
||
#include "absl/types/span.h"
|
||
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
|
||
#include "ortools/sat/sat_base.h"
|
||
|
||
namespace operations_research {
|
||
namespace sat {
|
||
namespace {
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, CheckSuccessWithoutRatClauses) {
|
||
// Example from Fig. 1 of 'Efficient Certified RAT Verification'.
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+2, +3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(4), Literals({-2, -3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(5), Literals({-1, -3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(6), Literals({+1, +3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(7), Literals({-1, +2, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(8), Literals({+1, -2, -4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(9), Literals({+1, +2}),
|
||
{ClauseId(1), ClauseId(6), ClauseId(3)},
|
||
{}));
|
||
checker.DeleteClauses({ClauseId(1)});
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(10), Literals({+1, +3}),
|
||
{ClauseId(9), ClauseId(8), ClauseId(6)},
|
||
{}));
|
||
checker.DeleteClauses({ClauseId(6)});
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(11), Literals({+1}),
|
||
{ClauseId(10), ClauseId(9), ClauseId(4), ClauseId(8)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.Check());
|
||
checker.DeleteClauses({ClauseId(10), ClauseId(9), ClauseId(8)});
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(12), Literals({+2}),
|
||
{ClauseId(11), ClauseId(7), ClauseId(5), ClauseId(3)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.Check());
|
||
checker.DeleteClauses({ClauseId(7), ClauseId(3)});
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(13), {},
|
||
{ClauseId(11), ClauseId(12), ClauseId(2), ClauseId(4), ClauseId(5)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.Check());
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, CheckSuccessWithRatClause) {
|
||
// Example from Fig. 2 of 'Efficient Certified RAT Verification'.
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+2, +3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(4), Literals({-2, -3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(5), Literals({-1, -3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(6), Literals({+1, +3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(7), Literals({-1, +2, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(8), Literals({+1, -2, -4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(9), Literals({+1}), /*unit_ids=*/{},
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(2), {ClauseId(6), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(5), {ClauseId(1), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(7), {ClauseId(6), ClauseId(1)}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.Check());
|
||
checker.DeleteClauses({ClauseId(8), ClauseId(6), ClauseId(1)});
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(10), Literals({+2}),
|
||
{ClauseId(9), ClauseId(7), ClauseId(5), ClauseId(3)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.Check());
|
||
checker.DeleteClauses({ClauseId(7), ClauseId(3)});
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(11), {},
|
||
{ClauseId(9), ClauseId(10), ClauseId(2), ClauseId(4), ClauseId(5)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.Check());
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, CheckSuccessWithRatClausesExtensions) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+2, +3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(4), Literals({-2, -3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(5), Literals({-1, -3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(6), Literals({+1, +3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(7), Literals({-1, +2, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(8), Literals({+1, -2, -4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
// Clause 1 becomes unit ({-3}).
|
||
ClauseId(9), Literals({+1, +2}), {ClauseId(1)},
|
||
// clause 9 ∪ {+3} = {+1, +2, +3} has two complementary literals with
|
||
// clause 2 (+1 and +2). Hence the unit propagation proof is not needed.
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(2), {}},
|
||
// Likewise with clause 5 (+1 and +3).
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(5), {}},
|
||
// If we assume that all the literals of clause 9 ∪ {+3} are false, as
|
||
// well as all those of clause 7 except the negation of the pivot (i.e.,
|
||
// {+2, +4}), then clause 6 is in conflict. But this would not be the
|
||
// case if {+3}, propagated from clause 1 above, was ignored.
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(7), {ClauseId(6)}}}));
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, ClauseIdAlreadyUsed) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2})));
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+3, +4})));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 1: clause ID 1 already used");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, ErrorStateIsSticky) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2})));
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+3, +4})));
|
||
// This clause is valid, but there was an error at a previous step.
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({+5, +6})));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 1: clause ID 1 already used");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, CompleteStateIsSticky) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({})));
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.Check());
|
||
// This clause is invalid (ID already used), but it is ignored since the proof
|
||
// is already complete.
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2})));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, ClauseWithTwoComplementaryLiteralsIsIgnored) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -1})));
|
||
// The clause ID is the same as the previous one, but this should be OK as the
|
||
// previous clause should not be ignored.
|
||
EXPECT_TRUE(checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+3, +4})));
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, UnknownUnitClauseId) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({+3, +4}),
|
||
{ClauseId(2)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 2: unit_id 2 not found");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, UnitClauseIdIsNotUnit) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, +3}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({+1}),
|
||
{ClauseId(1)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 2: unit_id 1 is not unit");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, MissingPivotForRatProof) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, +3}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(2), Literals({}), {}, {LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(1), {}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(),
|
||
"In clause 2: missing pivot for RAT proof");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, MissingClauseInRatIds) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
|
||
// If the last clause in `unit_ids` is not a conflict, the `rat` proof must be
|
||
// valid (here it is not, since clause 2 contains the negation of the pivot
|
||
// but is not listed).
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+1, +2}),
|
||
{ClauseId(1)}, {}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(),
|
||
"In clause 3: wrong number of resolvant IDs in RAT proof");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, DuplicateRatResolvantId) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+2, +3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(4), Literals({-2, -3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(5), Literals({-1, -3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(6), Literals({+1, +3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(7), Literals({-1, +2, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(8), Literals({+1, -2, -4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(9), Literals({+1}), /*unit_ids=*/{},
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(2), {ClauseId(6), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(5), {ClauseId(1), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(5), {ClauseId(1), ClauseId(8)}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 9: duplicate resolvant_id 5");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, UnknownRatResolvantId) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-3, +4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(
|
||
checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+3, +4}), {},
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(3), {}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 3: resolvant_id 3 not found");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, MissingNegatedPivotInRatResolvant) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-3, +4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(
|
||
checker.AddInferredClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+3, +4}), {},
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(1), {}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(),
|
||
"In clause 3: missing negated pivot in resolvant_id 1");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, UnknownRatUnitId) {
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-3, +4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(3), Literals({+3, +4}), {},
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(2), {ClauseId(3)}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 3: rat.unit_id 3 not found");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, RatUnitClauseIdIsNotUnit) {
|
||
// Example from Fig. 2 of 'Efficient Certified RAT Verification'.
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+2, +3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(4), Literals({-2, -3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(5), Literals({-1, -3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(6), Literals({+1, +3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(7), Literals({-1, +2, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(8), Literals({+1, -2, -4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(9), Literals({+1}), /*unit_ids=*/{},
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(2), {ClauseId(7), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(5), {ClauseId(1), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(7), {ClauseId(6), ClauseId(1)}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(checker.error_message(), "In clause 9: rat.unit_id 7 is not unit");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
TEST(LratCheckerTest, LastRatUnitClauseIdIsNotAConflict) {
|
||
// Example from Fig. 2 of 'Efficient Certified RAT Verification'.
|
||
LratChecker checker;
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(1), Literals({+1, +2, -3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(2), Literals({-1, -2, +3}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(3), Literals({+2, +3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(4), Literals({-2, -3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(5), Literals({-1, -3, -4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(6), Literals({+1, +3, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(7), Literals({-1, +2, +4}));
|
||
checker.AddProblemClause(ClauseId(8), Literals({+1, -2, -4}));
|
||
|
||
EXPECT_FALSE(checker.AddInferredClause(
|
||
ClauseId(9), Literals({+1}), /*unit_ids=*/{},
|
||
// Clause 6 does not become empty after propagation (clause 8 missing).
|
||
{LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(2), {ClauseId(6)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(5), {ClauseId(1), ClauseId(8)}},
|
||
LratChecker::RatIds{ClauseId(7), {ClauseId(6), ClauseId(1)}}}));
|
||
EXPECT_EQ(
|
||
checker.error_message(),
|
||
"In clause 9: last unit_id for rat.resolvant_id 2 is not a conflict");
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
} // namespace
|
||
} // namespace sat
|
||
} // namespace operations_research
|