# SMT

src - maybe?

# SAT solvers

## Cons

- Require input problem to be a propositional logic formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF). This is not a natural way to express most problems that require SAT
- Computing CNF formulas is often bad and hard so SAT solvers aren't really at the right "level" for use by the working programmer
- Look up `cardinality constraints CNF` on google scholar - reveals lots of problems and tradeoffs that can be made

## Why SMT over SAT?

- SMT solvers allow more freedom in the expression of input problems - support integers, fixed width floats, arrays and potentially other datatypes, as well as common operations on those types, without requiring a specific normal form!
- API that allows for the manipulation of the input formula exposed by the solver, unlike strict

## How do they work?

### Bit blasting

- Directly convert input formula into an equivalent Boolean formula in CNF
- Limited to formulas where every data type has a finite set of values
- Need a SAT solver as a backend, any improvement to SAT translates directly to an improvement to an SMT solver - so this is just additional tooling around a SAT solver to make it much easier to use.

### CDCL(T)

- Definition: conflict driven cause learning - the algorithm employed by most modern SAT solvers.