arxiv: 2605.11992 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.LO · cs.FL· cs.SY· eess.SY

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

sweap: Reactive Synthesis for Infinite-State Integer Problems

Luca Di Stefano, Nir Piterman, Shaun Azzopardi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LO cs.FLcs.SYeess.SY

keywords reactive synthesisinfinite-state systemslinear integer arithmeticCEGARabstraction refinementrealizabilitysynthesis tooltemporal stream logic

0 comments

The pith

Sweap decides realizability for infinite-state integer reactive synthesis by reducing problems to finite-state instances via CEGAR.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents sweap as a tool for synthesizing reactive systems whose specifications involve infinite state spaces over linear integer arithmetic. It works by abstracting these problems into finite-state synthesis tasks that existing tools can solve, then refining the abstraction whenever a counterexample reveals it is too coarse. The implementation adds dual abstraction to strengthen proofs that no system exists, support for nondeterministic and unbounded updates, broader variable initialization, and equirealisable reductions that preserve the core question while enabling optimizations. It accepts several standard input formats and experimental results indicate it solves more cases faster than the only prior tool in this area.

Core claim

Sweap implements a CEGAR approach that relies on state-of-the-art finite-state synthesis tools as black boxes to solve abstract synthesis problems for infinite-state Linear Integer Arithmetic reactive systems. It supports Temporal Stream Logic Modulo Theories, Reactive Program Games, and other formalisms, incorporates dual abstraction for proving unrealisability, handles nondeterministic and unbounded updates plus more general initialization, and applies equirealisable reductions for optimisation. Experimental evaluation shows that sweap outperforms its only competitor in this domain.

What carries the argument

Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR) that reduces infinite integer state spaces to finite-state synthesis problems solved by external black-box tools, refined iteratively with dual abstraction to handle unrealisability.

Load-bearing premise

The CEGAR loop with black-box finite-state solvers, dual abstraction, and equirealisable reductions correctly decides realizability for the supported classes of infinite-state integer problems.

What would settle it

A specification in one of the supported input languages for which sweap reports realizability but no realizing infinite-state system exists, or reports unrealizability but a realizing system can be exhibited.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11992 by Luca Di Stefano, Nir Piterman, Shaun Azzopardi.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A trace from the abstraction of Listing 2 and its dualised counterpart. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Scatter plots. Each marker corresponds to a synthesis task that both tools [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent years have seen a significant increase in the interest in reactive synthesis from specifications that relate to infinite state spaces. We present sweap, a tool for synthesis of infinite-state Linear Integer Arithmetic reactive systems. sweap implements a CEGAR approach, relying on state-of-the-art finite-state synthesis tools as black boxes to solve abstract synthesis problems. sweap supports most common input formalisms for infinite-state reactive-synthesis problems: Temporal Stream Logic Modulo Theories, Reactive Program Games, the bespoke input of the ISSY tool, and our own bespoke input. We present a mature version of sweap with novel features: a dual abstraction approach that improves its capabilities in proving unrealisability, support for nondeterministic and unbounded updates, more general initialization of variables, and equirealisable reductions for optimisation. Experimental evaluation shows that sweap outperforms its only competitor in this domain.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Sweap adds some practical extensions to CEGAR-based infinite-state synthesis and reports better results than ISSY, but the soundness of the dual abstraction and equirealisable reductions is not shown.

read the letter

Sweap is a tool that applies CEGAR to reactive synthesis problems over linear integer arithmetic, calling existing finite-state synthesis engines on abstractions. It adds dual abstraction to help prove unrealizability, support for nondeterministic and unbounded updates, more general variable initialization, and equirealisable reductions meant to optimize the search. It also accepts several input formats including Temporal Stream Logic Modulo Theories and the prior ISSY format. The paper positions these as improvements over the only existing competitor and states that experiments show better performance. That is the concrete contribution: a working implementation with a few extra capabilities that people synthesizing controllers for counter-based systems might actually use. The experiments are the part that could matter most in practice, since the field needs tools that scale beyond toy cases. The soft spots are around verification of the new pieces. The writeup describes the CEGAR loop and the reductions but gives no theorem, proof sketch, or counterexample argument showing that the dual abstraction remains sound when updates are nondeterministic or that the equirealisable reductions preserve the original realizability question. Without that, it is hard to know whether the tool can return wrong answers on some inputs. The experimental claims are also thin in the abstract, with no numbers or benchmark details supplied, so the outperformance is difficult to assess. This paper is for researchers who already work on reactive synthesis or automated verification of infinite-state systems and who might want to try the tool on their own problems. A reader outside that narrow area will not get much from it. I would send it to peer review. The implementation work is real and the claimed improvements are specific enough that referees can check the code and the experiments directly.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents sweap, a tool for reactive synthesis of infinite-state systems over Linear Integer Arithmetic (LIA). It implements a CEGAR approach that invokes state-of-the-art finite-state synthesis tools as black boxes on abstractions, supports input formalisms including Temporal Stream Logic Modulo Theories, Reactive Program Games, the ISSY format, and a bespoke input, and introduces features such as dual abstraction for unrealisability proofs, nondeterministic and unbounded updates, more general initialization, and equirealisable reductions. Experimental evaluation claims that sweap outperforms its only competitor.

Significance. If the soundness of the CEGAR loop, dual abstraction, and reductions holds, the work provides a practical advance in a domain with limited tooling. The modular black-box design and expanded support for nondeterminism and general initialization broaden applicability, while the reported outperformance suggests improved scalability over prior tools. The absence of machine-checked proofs or detailed soundness arguments is a notable limitation for a synthesis tool.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (CEGAR loop and abstractions): No formal theorem, proof sketch, or counterexample-free argument is given establishing that the abstraction-refinement loop (including dual abstraction and equirealisable reductions) is sound for LIA systems with nondeterministic updates and general initialization—i.e., that abstract realizability coincides with concrete realizability and that the black-box finite-state interface preserves the required properties. This is load-bearing for the central claim that sweap correctly decides realizability.
[§5] §5 (Experimental evaluation): The comparison tables do not report the total number of benchmarks, selection criteria, timeout values, or whether all instances fall within the supported input classes with nondeterministic updates; without these details the outperformance claim cannot be assessed for generality or robustness.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to 'our own bespoke input' without a one-sentence characterization or forward reference to its definition in §2.
[§2] Notation for the supported input formalisms is introduced piecemeal; a consolidated table in §2 would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important aspects for strengthening the presentation of soundness and experimental reproducibility. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested changes in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (CEGAR loop and abstractions): No formal theorem, proof sketch, or counterexample-free argument is given establishing that the abstraction-refinement loop (including dual abstraction and equirealisable reductions) is sound for LIA systems with nondeterministic updates and general initialization—i.e., that abstract realizability coincides with concrete realizability and that the black-box finite-state interface preserves the required properties. This is load-bearing for the central claim that sweap correctly decides realizability.

Authors: We agree that an explicit formal statement and proof sketch would strengthen the paper, particularly given the central role of the CEGAR procedure. The abstractions are constructed as over-approximations for realizability queries and under-approximations (via dual abstraction) for unrealizability, with equirealisable reductions preserving the realizability status by design; the black-box finite-state solvers are invoked only on finite abstractions that encode the necessary LIA constraints. Nevertheless, the manuscript does not contain a dedicated theorem or sketch covering nondeterministic updates and general initialization. In the revision we will add a theorem in §3 together with a concise proof sketch that establishes coincidence of abstract and concrete realizability for the supported LIA fragment. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (Experimental evaluation): The comparison tables do not report the total number of benchmarks, selection criteria, timeout values, or whether all instances fall within the supported input classes with nondeterministic updates; without these details the outperformance claim cannot be assessed for generality or robustness.

Authors: We accept that the experimental section would benefit from additional metadata to allow readers to evaluate the scope of the results. The benchmarks comprise instances drawn from the ISSY suite and additional LIA problems that include nondeterministic updates; all fall within the input classes supported by sweap. In the revised manuscript we will expand §5 to state the total number of benchmarks, the precise selection criteria, the timeout value employed (3600 s), and an explicit confirmation that every instance respects the supported features including nondeterministic and unbounded updates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: tool description and empirical claims are self-contained

full rationale

The manuscript describes an implemented CEGAR-based tool that invokes external finite-state synthesis solvers as black boxes, along with added features such as dual abstraction and equirealisable reductions. No equations, definitions, or derivation steps are present that reduce a claimed result to a quantity defined in terms of itself, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a self-citation chain whose only justification is prior work by the same authors. Performance claims rest on experimental comparison rather than any internal self-referential construction, satisfying the criteria for a non-circular tool paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the central claim rests on the soundness of the CEGAR implementation and the correctness of the listed reductions, none of which are detailed here. No free parameters or invented entities are visible in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Finite-state reactive synthesis tools can be used as sound black boxes for sufficiently precise abstractions of infinite-state problems
The CEGAR loop described in the abstract relies on this.
domain assumption The supported input formalisms (TSL Modulo Theories, Reactive Program Games, ISSY input, bespoke input) can be reduced to Linear Integer Arithmetic problems
The tool's scope is defined by these reductions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5453 in / 1555 out tokens · 119091 ms · 2026-05-13T04:05:31.315021+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
sweap implements a CEGAR approach, relying on state-of-the-art finite-state synthesis tools as black boxes to solve abstract synthesis problems... dual abstraction approach... equirealisable reductions
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
binary encoding of predicates... acceleration assumptions... liveness refinement

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Piskac, R., Rakamaric, Z

Azzopardi, S., Di Stefano, L., Piterman, N., Schneider, G.: Full LTL Synthesis over Infinite-State Arenas. In: Piskac, R., Rakamaric, Z. (eds.) 37th International ConferenceonComputerAidedVerification(CAV).LNCS,vol.15934,pp.274–297. Springer, Zagreb, Croatia (2025).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98685-7_13

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98685-7_13 2025
[2]

Azzopardi, S., Piterman, N., Di Stefano, L., Schneider, G.: Full LTL synthesis over infinite-state arenas (extended version) (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09776

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Journal of the ACM50(5), 752–794 (2003).https://doi.org/10.1145/876638.876643

Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. Journal of the ACM50(5), 752–794 (2003).https://doi.org/10.1145/876638.876643

work page doi:10.1145/876638.876643 2003
[4]

48550/ARXIV.2206.11366,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.11366

Duret-Lutz, A., Renault, E., Colange, M., Renkin, F., Aisse, A.G., Schlehuber- Caissier, P., Medioni, T., Martin, A., Dubois, J., Gillard, C., Lauko, H.: From spot 2.0 to spot 2.10: What’s new? CoRRabs/2206.11366(2022).https://doi.org/10. 48550/ARXIV.2206.11366,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.11366

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.11366 2022
[5]

In: Computer Aided Verification

Finkbeiner, B., Klein, F., Piskac, R., Santolucito, M.: Temporal stream logic: Syn- thesis beyond the bools. In: Computer Aided Verification. pp. 609–629. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

In: CAV’97

Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: CAV’97. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer (1997).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 3-540-63166-6_10

work page 1997
[7]

Heim, P., Dimitrova, R.: Solving infinite-state games via acceleration. Proc. ACM Program. Lang.8(POPL) (jan 2024).https://doi.org/10.1145/3632899

work page doi:10.1145/3632899 2024
[8]

In: Piskac, R., Rakamaric, Z

Heim, P., Dimitrova, R.: Issy: A Comprehensive Tool for Specification and Syn- thesis of Infinite-State Reactive Systems. In: Piskac, R., Rakamaric, Z. (eds.) 37th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 15934, pp. 298–312. Springer, Zagreb, Croatia (2025).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-98685-7_14

work page 2025
[9]

In: Junges, S., Katz, G

Heim, P., Dimitrova, R.: Modular Attractor Acceleration in Infinite-State Games. In: Junges, S., Katz, G. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 32nd International Conference, TACAS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 16505, pp. 398–418. Springer (2026).https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-032-22752-2_21

work page 2026
[10]

In: 30th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming

Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Counterexample-guided control. In: 30th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2719, pp. 886–902. Springer (2003)

work page 2003
[11]

In: Gurfinkel, A., Heule, M

Kretínský, J., Meggendorfer, T., Prokop, M., Zarkhah, A.: SemML: Enhanc- ing Automata-Theoretic LTL Synthesis with Machine Learning. In: Gurfinkel, A., Heule, M. (eds.) 31st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 15696, pp. 233–253. Springer, Hamilton, ON, Canada (2025).https://doi...

work page 2025
[12]

In: 22nd Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2022

Maderbacher, B., Bloem, R.: Reactive synthesis modulo theories using abstraction refinement. In: 22nd Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2022. p. 315–324. TU Wien Academic Press (2022).https://doi.org/10. 34727/2022/isbn.978-3-85448-053-2_38

work page 2022
[13]

In: Computer Aided Verifica- tion, 18th International Conference, CAV 2006

McMillan, K.L.: Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In: Computer Aided Verifica- tion, 18th International Conference, CAV 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Sci- ence, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer (2006).https://doi.org/10.1007/11817963_ 14 14 Azzopardi et al

work page doi:10.1007/11817963_ 2006
[14]

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol

Meyer, P.J., Sickert, S., Luttenberger, M.: Strix: Explicit reactive synthesis strikes back! In: Computer Aided Verification - 30th International Conference, CAV 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10981, pp. 578–586. Springer (2018).https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_31

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_31 2018
[15]

In: 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algo- rithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS)

Neider, D., Topcu, U.: An automaton learning approach to solving safety games over infinite graphs. In: 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algo- rithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 9636, p. 204–221. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2016).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-662-49674-9_12

work page 2016
[16]

In: POPL

Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: POPL. pp. 179–

work page
[17]

In: 38th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV (2026)

Prokop, M., Meggendorfer, T., Kretínský, J.: Semml 2.0: Synthesizing controllers from LTL. In: 38th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV (2026)

work page 2026
[18]

In: Proc

Rodríguez, A., Gorostiaga, F., Sánchez, C.: Counter example guided reactive syn- thesis for LTL modulo theories. In: Proc. of the 37th Int’l Conf. on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’25), Part IV. LNCS, vol. 15934, pp. 224–248. Springer (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98685-7_11,https://link.springer.com/chapter/ 10.1007/978-3-031-98685-7_11

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98685-7_11 2025
[19]

In: Gurfinkel, A., Ganesh, V

Schmuck, A.K., Heim, P., Dimitrova, R., Nayak, S.P.: Localized attractor compu- tations for infinite-state games. In: Gurfinkel, A., Ganesh, V. (eds.) 36th Inter- national Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 14683, pp. 135–158. Springer, Montreal, QC, Canada (2024).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-65633-0_7 sweap: Reactive Synthe...

work page 2024