cvc5-cvc5-1.2.0.src.theory.combination_care_graph.cpp Maven / Gradle / Ivy
The newest version!
/******************************************************************************
* Top contributors (to current version):
* Andrew Reynolds, Dejan Jovanovic, Aina Niemetz
*
* This file is part of the cvc5 project.
*
* Copyright (c) 2009-2024 by the authors listed in the file AUTHORS
* in the top-level source directory and their institutional affiliations.
* All rights reserved. See the file COPYING in the top-level source
* directory for licensing information.
* ****************************************************************************
*
* Management of a care graph based approach for theory combination.
*/
#include "theory/combination_care_graph.h"
#include "expr/node_visitor.h"
#include "prop/prop_engine.h"
#include "theory/care_graph.h"
#include "theory/model_manager.h"
#include "theory/shared_solver.h"
#include "theory/theory_engine.h"
namespace cvc5::internal {
namespace theory {
CombinationCareGraph::CombinationCareGraph(
Env& env, TheoryEngine& te, const std::vector& paraTheories)
: CombinationEngine(env, te, paraTheories)
{
}
CombinationCareGraph::~CombinationCareGraph() {}
void CombinationCareGraph::combineTheories()
{
Trace("combineTheories") << "TheoryEngine::combineTheories()" << std::endl;
// Care graph we'll be building
CareGraph careGraph;
// get the care graph from the parametric theories
for (Theory* t : d_paraTheories)
{
t->getCareGraph(&careGraph);
}
Trace("combineTheories")
<< "TheoryEngine::combineTheories(): care graph size = "
<< careGraph.size() << std::endl;
// Now add splitters for the ones we are interested in
prop::PropEngine* propEngine = d_te.getPropEngine();
for (const CarePair& carePair : careGraph)
{
Trace("combineTheories")
<< "TheoryEngine::combineTheories(): checking " << carePair.d_a << " = "
<< carePair.d_b << " from " << carePair.d_theory << std::endl;
// The equality in question (order for no repetition)
Node equality = carePair.d_a.eqNode(carePair.d_b);
// We need to split on it
Trace("combineTheories")
<< "TheoryEngine::combineTheories(): requesting a split " << std::endl;
TrustNode tsplit;
if (isProofEnabled())
{
// make proof of splitting lemma
tsplit = d_cmbsPg->mkTrustNodeSplit(equality);
}
else
{
Node split = equality.orNode(equality.notNode());
tsplit = TrustNode::mkTrustLemma(split, nullptr);
}
d_sharedSolver->sendLemma(
tsplit, carePair.d_theory, InferenceId::COMBINATION_SPLIT);
// Could check the equality status here:
// EqualityStatus es = getEqualityStatus(carePair.d_a, carePair.d_b);
// and only require true phase below if:
// es == EQUALITY_TRUE || es == EQUALITY_TRUE_IN_MODEL
// and require false phase below if:
// es == EQUALITY_FALSE_IN_MODEL
// This is supposed to force preference to follow what the theory models
// already have but it doesn't seem to make a big difference - need to
// explore more -Clark
Node e = d_valuation.ensureLiteral(equality);
propEngine->preferPhase(e, true);
}
}
bool CombinationCareGraph::buildModel()
{
// building the model happens as a separate step
return d_mmanager->buildModel();
}
} // namespace theory
} // namespace cvc5::internal