Abstract. When goals fall in decidable logic fragments, users of proofassistants expect automation. However, despite the availability of decision procedures, automation does not come for free. The reason is that decision procedures do not generate proof terms. In this paper, we show how to design efficient and lightweight reflexive tactics for a hierarchy of quantifier-free fragments of integer arithmetics. The tactics can cope with a wide class of linear and non-linear goals. For each logic fragment, off-the-shelf algorithms generate certificates of infeasibility that are then validated by straightforward reflexive checkers proved correct inside the proof-assistant. This approach has been prototyped using the Coq proofassistant. Preliminary experiments are promising as the tactics run fast and produce small proof terms. 1

Abstract Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory and we have demonstrated that the higher-order theorem prover LEO-II can automate reasoning in and about them. In this paper we combine these results and describe a sound (and complete) embedding of different access control logics in simple type theory. Employing this framework we show that the off the shelf theorem prover LEO-II can be applied to automate reasoning in and about prominent access control logics. 1

We study straightforward embeddings of propositional normal multimodal logic and propositional intuitionistic logic in simple type theory. The correctness of these embeddings is easily shown. We give examples to demonstrate that these embeddings provide an effective framework for computational investigations of various non-classical logics. We report some experiments using the higher-order automated theorem prover LEO-II.

This article presents detailed implementations of quantifier elimination for both integer and real linear arithmetic for theorem provers. The underlying algorithms are those by Cooper (for Z) and by Ferrante and Rackoff (for R). Both algorithms are realized in two entirely different ways: once in tactic style, i.e. by a proof-producing functional program, and once by reflection, i.e. by computations inside the logic rather than in the meta-language. Both formalizations are highly generic because they make only minimal assumptions w.r.t. the underlying logical system and theorem prover. An implementation in Isabelle/HOL shows that the reflective approach is between one and two orders of magnitude faster. 1

We address some aspects of a proposed system architecture for mathematical assistants, integrating calculations and deductions by common infrastructure within the Isabelle theorem proving environment. Here calculations may refer to arbitrary extra-logical mechanisms, operating on the syntactic structure of logical statements. Deductions are devoid of any computational content, but driven by procedures external to the logic, following to the traditional “LCF system approach”. The latter is extended towards explicit dependency on abstract theory contexts, with separate mechanisms to interpret both logical and extra-logical content uniformly. Thus we are able to implement proof methods that operate on abstract theories and a range of particular theory interpretations. Our approach is demonstrated in Isabelle/HOL by a proof-procedure for generic ring equalities via Gröbner Bases.

Today highly nontrivial mathematics is routinely being encoded in the computer, ensuring a reliability that is orders of a magnitude larger than if one had just used human minds. Such an encoding is called a formalization, and a program that checks such a formalization for correctness is called a proof assistant. Suppose you have proved a theorem and you want to make certain that there are no mistakes in the proof. Maybe already a couple of times a mistake has been found and you want to make sure that that will not happen again. Maybe you fear that your intuition is misleading you and want to make sure that this is not the case. Or maybe you just want to bring your proof into the most pure and complete form possible. We will explain in this article how to go about this. Although formalization has become a routine activity, it still is labor intensive. Using current technology, a formalization will be roughly four times the size of a corresponding informal L AT E X proof (this ratio is called the de Bruijn factor), and it will take almost a full week to formalize a single page from an undergraduate mathematics textbook. The first step towards a formalization of a proof consists of deciding which proof assistant to use. For this it is useful to know which proof assistants have been shown to be practical for formalization. On the webpage [1] there is a list that keeps track of the formalization status of a hundred well-known theorems. The first few entries on that list appear

Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory (which is also known as higher-order logic) and we have demonstrated that the higherorder theorem prover LEO-II can automate reasoning in and about them. In this paper we combine these results and describe a sound and complete embedding of different access control logics in simple type theory. Employing this framework we show that the off the shelf theorem prover LEO-II can be applied to automate reasoning in prominent access control logics. 1