SMT with Uninterpreted Functions and Monotonicity Constraints in Systems Biology

The theory of uninterpreted functions is a key modeling tool for systems with unknown or abstracted components. Some domains, including systems biology, impose further monotonicity constraints on these components, requiring specific inputs to have a consistently positive or negative effect on the output. The monotonicity (or anti-monotonicity) of function arguments is a common constraint in models of physical—particularly biological—systems [kadelka2024meta] due to the mechanistic nature of their underlying processes. For instance, a single chemical reaction either produces or consumes a specific compound overall. Similarly, a catalyst or inhibitor either accelerates or slows down such a reaction. While there are rare cases of true non-monotonic influence in nature, monotonicity remains a standard assumption in dynamical models of physical systems [chevalier2025data, gerber2025reasoning, kadelka2024meta].

There are existing techniques for solving satisfiability over theories extended with uninterpreted functions subject to monotonicity constraints. A straightforward approach for dealing with these constraints relies on direct encoding using universally quantified formulas. More notably, Sofronie-Stokkermans et al. have proven that the extension of a theory with uninterpreted functions and monotonicity constraints is local [sofronie2007automated, sofronie2014ieee]. As a consequence, a fixed finite set of quantifier instances of monotonicity axioms is sufficient to encode the monotonicity. These instances can be derived directly from occurrences of uninterpreted function symbols in the input formula [sofronie2007automated].

This paper focuses on the use of uninterpreted functions with monotonicity constraints in logic-based discrete models, such as Boolean [kauffman1969homeostasis] and Thomas [thomas1991regulatory] networks. These frameworks are prominent in systems biology as predictive models of emergent phenomena [rozum2024boolean] and are widely applied to model gene regulation, cell-to-cell signaling, and metabolic pathways [kadelka2024meta, pastva2023repository]. They consist of discrete variables (binary in Boolean networks, multi-valued in Thomas networks) that represent the discretized concentrations of biochemical species. Each variable is governed by an update function, which maps the current system state to the variable’s level in the next time step.

A central challenge in logic-based modeling is model inference: the task of identifying a concrete model of the system that satisfies all empirical observations and mechanistic assumptions. While these constraints can vary, observations most frequently represent observed steady states (i.e., fixed points) of the system. Mechanistic assumptions, meanwhile, typically define the essentiality and monotonicity of regulations between variables, which together constitute the network’s influence graph.

Figure 1 depicts a simple inference problem. The system has three integer-valued variables: , , and . The precise update functions that compute the next state of the system are unknown, but it has been observed that is influenced by all three variables, with the effect of being negative and the effect of positive. Furthermore, is positively influenced by both and , while is positively influenced by . It has also been experimentally observed that the configurations , , and are fixed points of the system. For example, when the system is in the state , it must remain in in the next state. One admissible solution for this inference problem is given by:

This set of update functions clearly satisfies that is anti-monotone in and monotone in , and that and are monotone in all their arguments. Moreover, the update functions satisfy the observed fixed points:

1. 1.

   For the state , the next state is , which is .

2. 2.

   For the state , the next state is , which is .

3. 3.

   For the state , the next state is , which is .

We evaluate these smt-based approaches to model inference using a comprehensive suite of benchmarks from systems biology, comprising 8,381 and 465 instances derived from existing Boolean and integer-based models, respectively, as well as 144 large instances from biological datasets without a known ground-truth model. Our results demonstrate that the instantiation-based procedures significantly outperform the naive quantified encoding, particularly on complex or high-arity problems. As a key result, we show that our smt-based approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art tools used in systems biology, such as the asp-based Bonesis and the bdd-based AEON. Moreover, unlike these tools, our approach enables the analysis of non-Boolean models.

Let be a set. For a vector , we denote by the value at its -th position. For any vector , element , and index , we denote by the vector that agrees with at all positions except at position , where it has the value .

Let be a partially ordered set. The ordering is called total if for all , we have either or . For each and , a function is called monotone in the -th argument if for all and , we have that implies . The function is anti-monotone in the -th argument if the same assumptions imply .

We work in the context of standard first-order logic with equality. We briefly recall the notation and concepts that are important for this paper and refer the reader to standard textbooks on the topic for further details [Enderton72, BT18]. As is standard in smt, we consider only quantifier-free formulas, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

A signature is a set of function symbols and predicate symbols, denoted and , respectively. Each and has an associated arity, denoted and , respectively. The sets of (-)terms and (-)formulas are defined in the standard way. We denote by the set of all subterms of a formula .

A (-)structure is a pair consisting of a non-empty set (the domain) and a mapping that to each function symbol of arity assigns a function and to each predicate symbol of arity assigns a relation . The satisfaction relation between a structure and a formula is defined in the standard way. A (-)theory is a non-empty class of -structures. A formula is -satisfiable (or satisfiable modulo ) if it is satisfied by some structure . It is -unsatisfiable otherwise. A formula is -valid if it is satisfied by all structures in . A function symbol is called uninterpreted in the theory if the theory does not impose any restrictions on its interpretation. That is, if two -structures and differ only in the interpretation of , we have .

The examples in this paper are over the theory of linear integer arithmetic (), whose structures have the domain and the standard interpretation of arithmetic function and predicate symbols. However, the approach presented here is not limited to any particular theory . We only assume that we are working over a theory for which satisfiability of quantifier-free formulas is decidable.

In this section, we formalize the monotonicity constraints. We first define a monotonicity specification, which states, for each uninterpreted function symbol, which of its formal parameters are monotone, which are anti-monotone, and which are unrestricted. We then define when a given formula is satisfiable in a given logical theory with respect to a given monotonicity specification. Our definition is compatible with other notions of monotonicity constraints appearing in the literature [sofronie2007automated].

In the rest of the section, let be a fixed theory over a signature that contains a binary predicate symbol corresponding to a total ordering relation¹¹1The encodings of monotonicity used later in the paper are correct even with weaker assumptions on the ordering. The quantified encoding works for arbitrary partial orderings and the encoding based on eager quantifier instantiation works for arbitrary lattices and bounded semilattices [sofronie2007automated, sofronie2014ieee].. Formally, there is a predicate symbol of arity such that for all structures , the interpretation of this symbol is a total ordering relation on .

As a notational shorthand, if the monotonicity specification is clear from the context, we write simply for the monotone indices of and for its anti-monotone indices.

Notably, this definition restricts the monotonicity specification only to uninterpreted function symbols. This is our intended use-case, and the algorithms used later in the paper rely on this assumption. The definition of a monotonicity specification could, in principle, be extended to support interpreted functions as well, but enforcing it would require different techniques.

We consider a standard variant of the logic-based model inference problem over a set of indexed variables, . Each variable has an associated domain , which is either Boolean () or a larger integer interval (e.g., ). Alternatively, the cases of or are also possible, but are very rare in practical biological applications, since concentrations of biochemical species often have a finite number of distinct levels. Models whose variables are restricted entirely to Boolean domains correspond to Boolean networks, while those containing non-Boolean but bounded variables are known as multi-valued (or Thomas) networks.

The model structure is constrained by a directed influence graph , where edges represent regulations (i.e., regulates if and only if ). This graph dictates the signature of the uninterpreted functions in our smt query: for each , we define an uninterpreted function representing its update function, with an arity and domain matching its regulators.

The inference problem imposes three types of constraints on these uninterpreted functions.²²2Here and in the rest of the section, we present the constraints as explicitly existentially quantified to avoid introducing fresh constant names for each constraint. However, the existentially quantified variables should be replaced by fresh constants symbols in the real application.

• •

  Monotonicity: As part of the input, the method assumes a monotonicity specification . This is directly expressed as a monotonicity specification from Definition 3.1.

• •

  Essentiality: A regulation may be declared essential, meaning the regulator must have an observable impact on . Assuming without loss of generality that is the first of regulators for , we encode essentiality as a constraint defined as:

• •

  Fixed-point observations: Finally, a fixed-point observation is a partial function assigning constant values to a subset of model variables, asserting the existence of a matching fixed-point in the model’s state space. Let be a set of such assignments where and . The variables that are not assigned by can be assigned arbitrarily. If denote the indices of the regulators of , the fixed-point constraint is defined as follows:

Finally, for each variable or uninterpreted function with a bounded domain, we introduce a constraint asserting these bounds. For Boolean variables, the encoding uses propositional variables instead of bounded integers. Values of propositional variables are naturally ordered by , which can be expressed in propositional logic.

We can also apply two key formula simplifications. First, for essential regulations where is Boolean, the quantified variables and are directly instantiated with the constants and . Second, in fixed-point constraints, we propagate the observation , substituting with the constant in all function applications. While straightforward, we observe that these optimizations can have a non-trivial impact on the overall performance.

In this section, we discuss in detail two existing techniques for solving quantifier-free formulas with monotonicity constraints and introduce a lazy approach based on generation of monotonicity lemmas on demand.

To demonstrate the practical utility of using smt with monotonicity constraints for model inference, we perform an extensive evaluation on discrete models in systems biology, where monotonicity is a fundamental mechanistic assumption. Our evaluation focuses on inferring Boolean [kauffman1969homeostasis] and multi-valued [thomas1991regulatory] networks, two prominent classes of logic-based models [pastva2023repository, kadelka2024meta]. We have implemented our procedures within a tool powered by the Z3 smt solver [de2008z3]. To ensure reproducibility, the tool’s source code is hosted on GitHub³³3https://github.com/sybila/biodivine-algo-smt-inference/tree/artefact-sat-2026-submission, while all benchmark instances, test scripts, and complete experimental results are archived on Zenodo⁴⁴4https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18920286.

In this paper, we empirically evaluate the viability of smt when applied to the inference of logic-based models in systems biology. We identify function argument monotonicity as a critical challenge in the encoding of practical inference problems, demonstrating that naive quantified encodings of monotonicity frequently fail on real-world instances. We then evaluate two approaches based on quantifier instantiation, showing that they significantly outperform the naive quantified encoding. More importantly, switching to an instantiation-based encoding allows the smt approach to outperform current state-of-the-art automated reasoning tools in systems biology (namely Bonesis and AEON). Furthermore, it enables reasoning over integer-based systems, a capability that neither of these existing tools supports.

For future work, we aim to extend the inference problem encoding with additional biologically motivated constraints, such as requirements regarding trap spaces. Another promising direction is incorporating the uncertainty of biological observations as soft constraints within the framework of smt with optimization.