move self-checking functionality to inside sat/smt so it can be used on-line and not just off-line.
when self-validation fails, use vs, not clause, to check. It allows self-validation without checking and maintaining RUP validation.
new options sat.smt.proof.check_rup, sat.smt.proof.check for online validation.
z3 sat.smt.proof.check=true sat.euf=true /v:1 sat.smt.proof.check_rup=true /st file.smt2 sat.smt.proof=p.smt2
#6319 - fix incompleteness in propagation of default to all array terms in the equivalence class.
Fix bug with q_mbi where domain restrictions are not using values because the current model does not evaluate certain bound variables to values. Set model completion when adding these bound variables to the model to ensure their values are not missed.
Add better propagation of diagnostics when tactics and the new solver return unknown. The reason for unknown can now be traced to what theory was culprit (currently no additional information)
This commit overhauls the proof format (in development) for the new core.
NOTE: this functionality is work in progress with a long way to go.
It is shielded by the sat.euf option, which is off by default and in pre-release state.
It is too early to fuzz or use it. It is pushed into master to shed light on road-map for certifying inferences of sat.euf.
It retires the ad-hoc extension of DRUP used by the SAT solver.
Instead it relies on SMT with ad-hoc extensions for proof terms.
It adds the following commands (consumed by proof_cmds.cpp):
- assume - for input clauses
- learn - when a clause is learned (or redundant clause is added)
- del - when a clause is deleted.
The commands take a list of expressions of type Bool and the
last argument can optionally be of type Proof.
When the last argument is of type Proof it is provided as a hint
to justify the learned clause.
Proof hints can be checked using a self-contained proof
checker. The sat/smt/euf_proof_checker.h class provides
a plugin dispatcher for checkers.
It is instantiated with a checker for arithmetic lemmas,
so far for Farkas proofs.
Use example:
```
(set-option :sat.euf true)
(set-option :tactic.default_tactic smt)
(set-option :sat.smt.proof f.proof)
(declare-const x Int)
(declare-const y Int)
(declare-const z Int)
(declare-const u Int)
(assert (< x y))
(assert (< y z))
(assert (< z x))
(check-sat)
```
Run z3 on a file with above content.
Then run z3 on f.proof
```
(verified-smt)
(verified-smt)
(verified-smt)
(verified-farkas)
(verified-smt)
```
By not deleting justifications in base level unit literals it is possible for drup-trim to inspect the trail for dependencies - which clauses were used to derive a literal.
