Validating SMT solvers via semantic fusion
Open accessAbstract
We introduce Semantic Fusion, a general, effective methodology for validating Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers. Our key idea is to fuse two existing equisatisfiable (i.e., both satisfiable or unsatisfiable) formulas into a new formula that combines the structures of its ancestors in a novel manner and preserves the satisfiability by construction. This fused formula is then used for validating SMT solvers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Correctness in Dafny relies on the soundness of the SMT solver (e.g., Z3), a massive software system with a known history of bugs.
“Correctness relies on the soundness of the SMT solver (e.g., Z3), a massive software system with a known history of bugs (Mansur et al., 2020;Winterer et al., 2020).”
From AlgoVeri: An Aligned Benchmark for Verified Code Generation on Classical Algorithms (2026) · cites this paper as Winterer et al., 2020
The passages available from our copy are bibliographic metadata, not discussion of solver soundness or bugs. Searches for Z3, soundness, and bugs returned no substantive passage, so the attributed claim cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fuzz4ALL: Universal Fuzzing with Large Language Models
Xia, C. S., Paltenghi, M., Le Tian, J., Pradel, M., & Zhang, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639121 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
LLM Meets Bounded Model Checking: Neuro-symbolic Loop Invariant Inference
Wu, G., Cao, W., Yao, Y., Wei, H., Chen, T., & Ma, X. (2024) · Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3691620.3695014 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
AlgoVeri: An Aligned Benchmark for Verified Code Generation on Classical Algorithms
Zhao, H., Yang, Z., Li, J., He, D., Li, Z., Jin, C., Veeravalli, V. V., Gupta, A., & Arora, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.09464
- Authors
- Winterer, D., Zhang, C., & Su, Z.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- East China Normal University (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-06-11
- Pages
- 718-730
- ISSN
- 1531-7102 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3034071395
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 11.84
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI) (publishedVersion)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- semantic fusion, satisfiability, satisfiability modulo theories, SMT solvers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
