# Checking Uniform-Like Samplers

Uniform sampling is pretty simple: there are a set of solutions to a set of equations, and I want you to give me N solutions uniformly at random. Say, I have a set of equations that only has the solutions x=1…6, and I ask you to give me solutions uniformly at random. In this case, if the system is not cheating, it should give me solutions exactly like a random dice would give: 1..6, each with the same probability of 1/6. Now, if you give me nothing but 1’s I’d be slightly confused, and eventually would think you may be trying to cheat.

Uniformity is useful not only in gambling, but also e.g. if you want to make sure to cover a good chunk of the potential states in a system. Say, your equations describe how a program can run. Now, uniform solutions to these equations will be examples of the state space of your program. If you want to check that your system is in most cases doing the right thing, you can ask for uniform solutions at random and check the states for inconsistencies or unexpected behaviors.

## Uniform Sampling of CNFs

One type of equations that is quite popular is to have all variables boolean (i.e. True/False), and equations being nothing but an “AND of ORs”, i.e. something like: “(a OR b) AND (b OR c OR d) AND (-f OR -g)”. These types of equations, also known as CNF, can express quite complicate things, e.g. (parts of) computer programs, logical circuits (e.g. parts of CPUs), and more. What’s nice about CNF is that there are many different tools to convert your problem language into CNF.

Given CNF as the intermediate language, all you need to do is run a uniform sampler on the CNF, and interpret the samples given your transformation. For example, you could translate your Ethereum cryptocurrency contract into QF_BV logic and blast that to CNF using e.g. the STP solver. Then you can get uniform random examples of the execution of your cryptocurrency contract using e.g. UniGen.

There are many different samplers for CNFs, and they mostly fall into two categories: ones that give guarantees and are hence truly uniform, and ones that don’t give guarantees and therefore fall into what we’ll call uniform-like samplers. These latter samplers tend to be significantly faster than truly uniform samplers, however, they can, and sometimes do, give non-uniform samples. I personally help maintain one truly uniform sampler, UniGen (PDF), and one uniform-like sampler, CMSGen (PDF). Other popular truly uniform samplers include KUS (PDF) and SPUR (PDF).

## Catching Uniform-Like Samplers: Barbarik

If I give you a sampler and ask you to tell me if it’s truly uniform or simply uniform-like, what should you do? How should we distinguish one from the other, without looking into the internals of the system? It turns out that this is not a simple question to answer. It is very reasonable to assume that there are e.g. 2^200 solutions, so e.g. trying to prove that a sampler is uniform by saying that it should only output the same sample twice rarely is not really meaningful. In this latter case, you’d need to get approx 2^100 samples from a truly uniform sampler before it will likely give two colliding samples. While a uniform-like sampler may collide at e.g. only 2^60 (i.e. a trillion times earlier), that’s still a lot of computation, and only a single data point.

Doing this efficiently is the question that was on the minds of the authors of Barbarik. Basically, their idea was the following: take a CNF, remove all solutions but two, and blow up these two solutions into equally many solutions each. Say, you find two solutions to a CNF, one BLUE and one RED. Barbarik will take BLUE, make 100 blue balls out of it, and take RED, and make 100 red balls out of it. Then, it will give the CNF with the 200 solutions, half blue, half red, to the sampler under test. Then it asks the sampler to give it a bunch of balls. We of course expect approx 50%-50% red-blue distribution of balls from a truly uniform sampler.

Barbarik fails a solver if it is gives a distribution too far away from the 50%-50% we’d expect. Barbarik runs this check many times, with different example blue/red solutions that are “blown up” to multiple solutions. Given different base CNFs, and many tries, it is possible to differentiate the good from the bad… most of the time:

## The Birth of CMSGen

When Barbarik was being created, I was fortunate enough to be present, and so I decided to tweak my SAT solver, CryptoMiniSat purely using command-line parameters, until Barbarik could not distinguish it from a truly uniform sampler. This, in my view, showcased how extremely important a test system was: I actually had a bug in CryptoMiniSat’s randomization that Barbarik clearly showed and I had to fix to get higher quality samples. We called the resulting uniform-like sampler CMSGen, and it was used in the function synthesis tool Manthan (PDF), that blew all other function synthesis system out of the water, thanks to its innovative design and access to high quality, fast samples from CMSGen:

Notice that within 200 seconds Manthan outperformed all other function synthesis systems, even if we give the other system 7000 seconds to work with. If you are interested in the details of this crazy improvement over previous state-of-the-art, check out the slides here or the video here (these are all work of my coworkers, I am not an author).

While CMSGen was clearly fast and powerful, it bothered me endlessly that Barbarik couldn’t demonstrate that it wasn’t a truly uniform sampler. This eventually lead to the development of ScalBarbarik.

## The Birth of ScalBarbarik

Since CMSGen passed all the tests of Barbarik, we had to come up with a new trick to distinguish it from truly uniform samplers. ScalBarbarik‘s (PDF) underlying system is still the same as Barbarik: we take a CNF, take 2 samples from it, and blow both of these samples up to a certain number. However, how we blow them up is where the trick lies. Before, they were both blown up the same way into solutions that are equally easy/hard to find. However, this time around, we’ll make one of the solution types much harder to find than the other. For this, we’ll use Vegard Nossum’s SHA-1 CNF generator (PDF) to force the system to reverse a partial, reduced-round SHA-1 hash, with some fixed inputs & outputs. This allows us to both change the complexity of the problem and the number of solutions to it rather easily.

While one set of solutions will be hard to find, the other ones will be trivial to find — if one special variable is set to TRUE, the finding a set of solutions is trivial But when it’s set to FALSE, the system has to reverse a reduce-round SHA-1. The logic behind this is that the uniform-like systems will likely be finding the easy solutions with much higher probability than the hard solutions, so they will sample much more unevenly. Indeed that’s the case:

Note that as the hardness parameter is increased, CMSGen is rejected more and more often, and eventually it’s rejected for all CNFs. Also interesting to note is that QuickSampler and STS get both rejected, as before, but this time around, STS gets rejected for all 50 CNFs, rather than for only 36 out of 50. In other words, ScalBarbarik is overall a stronger/better distinguisher.

## Conclusions

With the birth of Barbarik, a set of uniform-like testers were shown to be less than ideal, and a new, more robust near-uniform sampler was born, CMSGen. But as a the gauntlet has been throw down by CMSGen, a new tool emerged, ScalBarbarik, to help find the non-truly uniform samplers. With this cycle in mind, I hope that new, more elaborate, and higher-quality uniform-like samplers will emerge that will be able to beat ScalBarbarik at its own game, improving the quality of the sampling while maintaining the speed advantage that uniform-like samplers enjoy over truly uniform samplers. With better uniform-like sampling tools, hopefully we’ll be able to make headway in automated test case generation (imagine having it as part of all development IDEs), higher performance function synthesis, and hopefully even more diverse areas of interest for the general public.

# How Approximate Model Counting Works

Approximate model counting allows to count the number of solutions (or “models”) to propositional satisfiability problems. This problem seems trivial at first given a propositional solver that can find a single solution: find one solution, ban it, ask for another one, ban it, etc. until all solutions are counted. The issue is that sometimes, the number of solutions is 2^50 and so counting this way is too slow. There are about 2^266 atoms in the universe, so counting anywhere near that is impossible using this method.

### Exact Counting

Since we cannot count 1-by-1, we are then left with trying to count in some smarter way. There are a bunch of methods to count exactly, the simplest is to cut the problem on a variable, count when the variable is True, count when the variable is False, recursively, and add them all up. Given caching of components that recur while “cutting” away, this can be quite successful, as implemented by sharpSAT (see Marc Thurley’s paper).

These counters can scale quite well, but have some downsides. In particular, when the memory runs out, the cache needs to be groomed, sometimes resorting back to 1-by-1 counting, which we know will fail as there is no way 2^200 can be counted 1-by-1 in any reasonable amount of time. The caching systems used are smart, though, retaining last-used entries when the cache needs to be groomed. However, sometimes this grooming algorithm can lead to cyclic behaviour that effectively simulates 1-by-1 counting.

### Approximate Counting

What Chakraborty, Meel and Vardi did in their paper, was to create a counter that counts not exactly, but “probably approximately correctly”. This jumble of terms basically means: there is a certain probability that the counting is correct, within a given threshold. We can both improve the probability and the threshold given more CPU time spent. In practical terms, the probability can be set to be over 99.99% and the threshold can be set to be under 20%, still beating exact counters. Note that 20% is not so much, as e.g. 2^60*1.2 = 2^(60.3).

So what’s the trick? How can we approximately count and give guarantees about the count? The trick is in fact quite simple. Let’s say you have to count balls, and there are thousands of them. One way to do it is to count 1-by-1. But, if you have a machine that can approximately half the number of balls you have, it can be done a lot faster: you half the balls, then check if you have at least 5 doing 1-by-1 counting. If you do, you half them again, and check if you have at least 5, etc. Eventually, let’s say you halved it 11 times and now you are left with 3 balls. So approximately, you must have had 3*2^11 = 6144 balls to begin with. In the end you had to execute the 1-by-1 count only 11*5+3+1 =59 times — a lot less than 6144! This is the idea used by ApproxMC.

### Approximately Halving Using XORs

The “approximate halving” function used by ApproxMC is the plain XOR function, populated with variables picked with 50% probability. So for example if we have variables v1…v10, we pick each variable with 50% probability and add them into the same XOR. Let’s say we picked v1,v2,v5 and v8. The XOR would then be: v1⊕v2⊕v5⊕v8=1. This XOR is satisfied if an odd number of variables from the set {v1,v2,v5,v8} are 1. This intuitively forbids about half the solutions. The “intuitively” part of course is not enough, and if you read the original paper you will find the rigorous mathematical proof for the approximate halving of solutions this XOR function provides.

OK, so all we need to do is add these XORs to our original problem and we are done! This sounds easy, but there is a small hurdle and there is a big hurdle associated with this.

The small hurdle is that the original problem is a CNF, i.e. a conjunction of disjunctions, looking like “(v1 OR v2) AND (v2 OR not v3 OR not v4) AND…”. The XOR obviously does not look like this. The straightforward translation of XOR into CNF is exponential, so we need to add some variables to cut them smaller. It’s not that hard to figure this out and eventually add all the XORs into the CNF.

### XORs, CDCL, and Gauss-Jordan Elimination

The larger hurdle is that once the XORs are in the CNF using the translation, the CNF becomes exponentially hard to solve using standard CDCL as used in most SAT solvers. This is because Gauss-Jordan elimination is exponentially hard for the standard CDCL to perform — but we need Gauss-Jordan elimination because the XORs will interact with each other, as we expect there to be many of them. Without being able to resolve the XORs with each other efficiently and derive information from them, it will be practically impossible to solve the CNF.

The solution is to tightly integrate Gauss-Jordan elimination into the solving process. CryptoMiniSat was the first solver to do this tight integration (albeit only for Gaussian elimination, which is sufficient). Other solvers have followed, in particular the work by Tero Laitinen and work by Cheng-Shen Han and Jie-Hong Roland Jiang. CryptoMiniSat currently uses the code by Han and Jiang after some cleanup and updates.

The latest work on ApproxMC and CryptoMiniSat has added one more thing besides the tight integration of the CDCL cycle: it now allows in- and pre-processing to occur while the XORs are inside the system. This brought some serious speedups as pre- and inprocessing are important factors in SAT solving. In fact, all modern SAT solvers strongly depend on them being active and working.

### Concluding Remarks

We have gone from what model counting is, through how approximate counting works from a high-level perspective, all the way to the detail of running such a system inside a modern SAT solver. In case you want to try it out, you can do it by downloading the pre-built binaries or building it from source.

# SMT Competition’14 and STP

The 2014 SMT competition‘s QF_BV divison is over (benchmark tarball here), and the results are (copied from here):

 Solver Errors Solved Not Solved CPU time (solved instances) Boolector 0 2361 127 138077.59 STP-CryptoMiniSat4 0 2283 205 190660.82 [MathSAT] 0 2199 289 262349.39 [Z3] 0 2180 308 214087.66 CVC4 0 2166 322 87954.62 4Simp 0 2121 367 187966.86 SONOLAR 0 2026 462 174134.49 Yices2 0 1770 718 159991.55 abziz_min_features 9 2155 324 134385.22 abziz_all_features 9 2093 386 122540.04

First, let me congratulate Boolector by Armin Biere. STP came a not-so-close second. STP was meant to be submitted twice, once with MiniSat and once with CyrptoMiniSat4 — this is the only reason why the STP submission is called STP-CryptoMiniSat4. Unfortunately, the other submission could not be made because of some compilation problems.