Results 1  10
of
25
Lightweight relevance filtering for machinegenerated resolution problems
 In ESCoR: Empirically Successful Computerized Reasoning
, 2006
"... Irrelevant clauses in resolution problems increase the search space, making it hard to find proofs in a reasonable time. Simple relevance filtering methods, based on counting function symbols in clauses, improve the success rate for a variety of automatic theorem provers and with various initial set ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Irrelevant clauses in resolution problems increase the search space, making it hard to find proofs in a reasonable time. Simple relevance filtering methods, based on counting function symbols in clauses, improve the success rate for a variety of automatic theorem provers and with various initial settings. We have designed these techniques as part of a project to link automatic theorem provers to the interactive theorem prover Isabelle. They should be applicable to other situations where the resolution problems are produced mechanically and where completeness is less important than achieving a high success rate with limited processor time. 1
The Heterogeneous Tool Set
 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2007
"... Abstract. Heterogeneous specification becomes more and more important because complex systems are often specified using multiple viewpoints, involving multiple formalisms. Moreover, a formal software development process may lead to a change of formalism during the development. However, current resea ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Heterogeneous specification becomes more and more important because complex systems are often specified using multiple viewpoints, involving multiple formalisms. Moreover, a formal software development process may lead to a change of formalism during the development. However, current research in integrated formal methods only deals with adhoc integrations of different formalisms. The heterogeneous tool set (Hets) is a parsing, static analysis and proof management tool combining various such tools for individual specification languages, thus providing a tool for heterogeneous multilogic specification. Hets is based on a graph of logics and languages (formalized as socalled institutions), their tools, and their translations. This provides a clean semantics of heterogeneous specification, as well as a corresponding proof calculus. For proof management, the calculus of development graphs (known from other largescale proof management systems) has been adapted to heterogeneous specification. Development graphs provide an overview of the (heterogeneous) specification module hierarchy and the current proof state, and thus may be used for monitoring the overall correctness of a heterogeneous development. 1
Translating HigherOrder Clauses to FirstOrder Clauses
"... Abstract. Interactive provers typically use higherorder logic, while automatic provers typically use firstorder logic. In order to integrate interactive provers with automatic ones, it is necessary to translate higherorder formulae to firstorder form. The translation should ideally be both sound ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Interactive provers typically use higherorder logic, while automatic provers typically use firstorder logic. In order to integrate interactive provers with automatic ones, it is necessary to translate higherorder formulae to firstorder form. The translation should ideally be both sound and practical. We have investigated several methods of translating function applications, types and λabstractions. Omitting some type information improves the success rate, but can be unsound, so the interactive prover must verify the proofs. This paper presents experimental data that compares the translations in respect of their success rates for three automatic provers. 1.
Expressiveness + automation + soundness: Towards combining SMT solvers and interactive proof assistants
 In Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS
, 2006
"... Abstract. Formal system development needs expressive specification languages, but also calls for highly automated tools. These two goals are not easy to reconcile, especially if one also aims at high assurances for correctness. In this paper, we describe a combination of Isabelle/HOL with a proofpr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Formal system development needs expressive specification languages, but also calls for highly automated tools. These two goals are not easy to reconcile, especially if one also aims at high assurances for correctness. In this paper, we describe a combination of Isabelle/HOL with a proofproducing SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solver that contains a SAT engine and a decision procedure for quantifierfree firstorder logic with equality. As a result, a user benefits from the expressiveness of Isabelle/HOL when modeling a system, but obtains much better automation for those fragments of the proofs that fall within the scope of the (automatic) SMT solver. Soundness is not compromised because all proofs are submitted to the trusted kernel of Isabelle for certification. This architecture is straightforward to extend for other interactive proof assistants and proofproducing reasoners. 1
Three Years of Experience with Sledgehammer, a Practical Link between Automatic and Interactive Theorem Provers
"... Sledgehammer is a highly successful subsystem of Isabelle/HOL that calls automatic theorem provers to assist with interactive proof construction. It requires no user configuration: it can be invoked with a single mouse gesture at any point in a proof. It automatically finds relevant lemmas from all ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Sledgehammer is a highly successful subsystem of Isabelle/HOL that calls automatic theorem provers to assist with interactive proof construction. It requires no user configuration: it can be invoked with a single mouse gesture at any point in a proof. It automatically finds relevant lemmas from all those currently available. An unusual aspect of its architecture is its use of unsound translations, coupled with its delivery of results as Isabelle/HOL proof scripts: its output cannot be trusted, but it does not need to be trusted. Sledgehammer works well with Isar structured proofs and allows beginners to prove challenging theorems. 1
Translating higherorder problems to firstorder clauses
 ESCoR (CEUR Workshop Proceedings
, 2006
"... Proofs involving large specifications are typically carried out through interactive provers that use higherorder logic. A promising approach to improve the automation of interactive provers is by integrating them with automatic provers, which are usually based on firstorder logic. Consequently, it ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proofs involving large specifications are typically carried out through interactive provers that use higherorder logic. A promising approach to improve the automation of interactive provers is by integrating them with automatic provers, which are usually based on firstorder logic. Consequently, it is necessary to translate higherorder logic formulae to firstorder form. This translation should ideally be both sound and practical. We have implemented three higherorder to firstorder translations, with particular emphasis on the translation of types. Omitting some type information improves the success rate, but can be unsound, so the interactive prover must verify the proofs. In this paper, we will describe our translations and experimental data that compares the three translations in respect of their success rates for various automatic provers. 1
SourceLevel Proof Reconstruction for Interactive Theorem Proving
"... Abstract. Interactive proof assistants should verify the proofs they receive from automatic theorem provers. Normally this proof reconstruction takes place internally, forming part of the integration between the two tools. We have implemented sourcelevel proof reconstruction: resolution proofs are ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Interactive proof assistants should verify the proofs they receive from automatic theorem provers. Normally this proof reconstruction takes place internally, forming part of the integration between the two tools. We have implemented sourcelevel proof reconstruction: resolution proofs are automatically translated to Isabelle proof scripts. Users can insert this text into their proof development or (if they wish) examine it manually. Each step of a proof is justified by calling Hurd’s Metis prover, which we have ported to Isabelle. A recurrent issue in this project is the treatment of Isabelle’s axiomatic type classes. 1
Handling polymorphism in automated deduction
 In 21th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE21), volume 4603 of LNCS (LNAI
, 2007
"... Abstract. Polymorphism has become a common way of designing short and reusable programs by abstracting generic definitions from typespecific ones. Such a convenience is valuable in logic as well, because it unburdens the specifier from writing redundant declarations of logical symbols. However, top ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Polymorphism has become a common way of designing short and reusable programs by abstracting generic definitions from typespecific ones. Such a convenience is valuable in logic as well, because it unburdens the specifier from writing redundant declarations of logical symbols. However, top shelf automated theorem provers such as Simplify, Yices or other SMTLIB ones do not handle polymorphism. To this end, we present efficient reductions of polymorphism in both unsorted and manysorted first order logics. For each encoding, we show that the formulas and their encoded counterparts are logically equivalent in the context of automated theorem proving. The efficiency keynote is to disturb the prover as little as possible, especially the internal decision procedures used for special sorts, e.g. integer linear arithmetic, to which we apply a special treatment. The corresponding implementations are presented in the framework of the Why/Caduceus toolkit. 1
Combined reasoning by automated cooperation
 JOURNAL OF APPLIED LOGIC
, 2008
"... Different reasoning systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and often it is useful to combine these systems to gain as much as possible from their strengths and retain as little as possible from their weaknesses. Of particular interest is the integration of firstorder and higherorder tech ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Different reasoning systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and often it is useful to combine these systems to gain as much as possible from their strengths and retain as little as possible from their weaknesses. Of particular interest is the integration of firstorder and higherorder techniques. Firstorder reasoning systems, on the one hand, have reached considerable strength in
some niches, but in many areas of mathematics they still cannot reliably solve relatively simple problems, for example, when
reasoning about sets, relations, or functions. Higherorder reasoning systems, on the other hand, can solve problems of this kind
automatically. But the complexity inherent in their calculi prevents them from solving a whole range of problems. However, while
many problems cannot be solved by any one system alone, they can be solved by a combination of these systems.
We present a general agentbased methodology for integrating different reasoning systems. It provides a generic integration
framework which facilitates the cooperation between diverse reasoners, but can also be refined to enable more efficient, specialist
integrations. We empirically evaluate its usefulness, effectiveness and efficiency by case studies involving the integration of first
order and higherorder automated theorem provers, computer algebra systems, and model generators.
Progress report on LEOII, an automatic theorem prover for higherorder logic
, 2007
"... Abstract. LeoII, a resolution based theorem prover for classical higherorder logic, is currently being developed in a one year research project at the University of Cambridge, UK, with support from Saarland University, Germany. We report on the current stage of development of LeoII. In particular, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. LeoII, a resolution based theorem prover for classical higherorder logic, is currently being developed in a one year research project at the University of Cambridge, UK, with support from Saarland University, Germany. We report on the current stage of development of LeoII. In particular, we sketch some main aspects of LeoII’s automated proof search procedure, discuss its cooperation with firstorder specialist provers, show that LeoII is also an interactive proof assistant, and explain its shared term data structure and its term indexing mechanism. 1