Results 1  10
of
61
Modular Data Structure Verification
 EECS DEPARTMENT, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
, 2007
"... This dissertation describes an approach for automatically verifying data structures, focusing on techniques for automatically proving formulas that arise in such verification. I have implemented this approach with my colleagues in a verification system called Jahob. Jahob verifies properties of Java ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This dissertation describes an approach for automatically verifying data structures, focusing on techniques for automatically proving formulas that arise in such verification. I have implemented this approach with my colleagues in a verification system called Jahob. Jahob verifies properties of Java programs with dynamically allocated data structures. Developers write Jahob specifications in classical higherorder logic (HOL); Jahob reduces the verification problem to deciding the validity of HOL formulas. I present a new method for proving HOL formulas by combining automated reasoning techniques. My method consists of 1) splitting formulas into individual HOL conjuncts, 2) soundly approximating each HOL conjunct with a formula in a more tractable fragment and 3) proving the resulting approximation using a decision procedure or a theorem prover. I present three concrete logics; for each logic I show how to use it to approximate HOL formulas, and how to decide the validity of formulas in this logic. First, I present an approximation of HOL based on a translation to firstorder logic, which enables the use of existing resolutionbased theorem provers. Second, I present an approximation of HOL based on field constraint analysis, a new technique that enables
Conjecture Synthesis for Inductive Theories
 JOURNAL OF AUTOMATED REASONING
, 2010
"... We have developed a program for inductive theory formation, called IsaCoSy, which synthesises conjectures ‘bottomup’ from the available constants and free variables. The synthesis process is made tractable by only generating irreducible terms, which are then filtered through counterexample checkin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We have developed a program for inductive theory formation, called IsaCoSy, which synthesises conjectures ‘bottomup’ from the available constants and free variables. The synthesis process is made tractable by only generating irreducible terms, which are then filtered through counterexample checking and passed to the automatic inductive prover IsaPlanner. The main technical contribution is the presentation of a constraint mechanism for synthesis. As theorems are discovered, this generates additional constraints on the synthesis process. We evaluate IsaCoSy as a tool for automatically generating the background theories one would expect in a mature proof assistant, such as the Isabelle system. The results show that IsaCoSy produces most, and sometimes all, of the theorems in the Isabelle libraries. The number of additional uninteresting theorems are small enough to be easily pruned by hand.
Constructing induction rules for deductive synthesis proofs
 LFCS University of Edinburgh
, 2005
"... We describe novel computational techniques for constructing induction rules for deductive synthesis proofs. Deductive synthesis holds out the promise of automated construction of correct computer programs from specifications of their desired behaviour. Synthesis of programs with iteration or recursi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe novel computational techniques for constructing induction rules for deductive synthesis proofs. Deductive synthesis holds out the promise of automated construction of correct computer programs from specifications of their desired behaviour. Synthesis of programs with iteration or recursion requires inductive proof, but standard techniques for the construction of appropriate induction rules are restricted to recycling the recursive structure of the specifications. What is needed is induction rule construction techniques that can introduce novel recursive structures. We show that a combination of rippling and the use of metavariables as a leastcommitment device can provide such novelty. Key words: deductive synthesis, proof planning, induction, theorem proving, middleout reasoning. 1
A Proof Planning Framework for Isabelle
, 2005
"... Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully formal proofs. This thesis concerns the development and analysis of a novel approach to proof planning that focuses on an explicit representation of choices during search. We embody our approach as a proof planner for the generic proof assistant Isabelle and use the Isar language, which is humanreadable and machinecheckable, to represent proof plans. Within this framework we develop an inductive theorem prover as a case study of our approach to proof planning. Our prover uses the difference reduction heuristic known as rippling to automate the step cases of the inductive proofs. The development of a flexible approach to rippling that supports its various modifications and extensions is the second major focus of this thesis. Here, our inductive theorem prover provides a context in which to evaluate rippling experimentally. This work results in an efficient and powerful inductive theorem prover for Isabelle as well as proposals for further improving the efficiency of rippling. We also draw observations in order
The HERMIT in the Machine: A Plugin for the Interactive Transformation of GHC Core Language Programs
 In Haskell Symposium (Haskell ’12). ACM
, 2012
"... The importance of reasoning about and refactoring programs is a central tenet of functional programming. Yet our compilers and development toolchains only provide rudimentary support for these tasks. This paper introduces a programmatic and compilercentric interface that facilitates refactoring an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The importance of reasoning about and refactoring programs is a central tenet of functional programming. Yet our compilers and development toolchains only provide rudimentary support for these tasks. This paper introduces a programmatic and compilercentric interface that facilitates refactoring and equational reasoning. To develop our ideas, we have implemented HERMIT, a toolkit enabling informal but systematic transformation of Haskell programs from inside the Glasgow Haskell Compiler’s optimization pipeline. With HERMIT, users can experiment with optimizations and equational reasoning, while the tedious heavy lifting of performing the actual transformations is done for them. HERMIT provides a transformation API that can be used to build higherlevel rewrite tools. One usecase is prototyping new optimizations as clients of this API before being committed to the GHC toolchain. We describe a HERMIT application—a readevalprint shell for performing transformations using HERMIT. We also demonstrate using this shell to prototype an optimization on a specific example, and report our initial experiences and remaining challenges. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.3.2 [Programming Languages]: Language Classifications—Applicative (functional) languages
Knowledge Representation and Classical Logic
, 2007
"... Mathematical logicians had developed the art of formalizing declarative knowledge long before the advent of the computer age. But they were interested primarily in formalizing mathematics. Because of the important role of nonmathematical knowledge in AI, their emphasis was too narrow from the perspe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Mathematical logicians had developed the art of formalizing declarative knowledge long before the advent of the computer age. But they were interested primarily in formalizing mathematics. Because of the important role of nonmathematical knowledge in AI, their emphasis was too narrow from the perspective of knowledge representation, their formal languages were not sufficiently expressive. On the other hand, most logicians were not concerned about the possibility of automated reasoning; from the perspective of knowledge representation, they were often too generous in the choice of syntactic constructs. In spite of these differences, classical mathematical logic has exerted significant influence on knowledge representation research, and it is appropriate to begin this handbook with a discussion of the relationship between these fields. The language of classical logic that is most widely used in the theory of knowledge representation is the language of firstorder (predicate) formulas. These are the formulas that John McCarthy proposed to use for representing declarative knowledge in his advice taker paper [176], and Alan Robinson proposed to prove automatically using resolution [236]. Propositional logic is, of course, the most important subset of firstorder logic; recent
Customised induction rules for proving correctness of imperative programs
, 2004
"... This thesis is aimed at simplifying the userinteraction in semiinteractive theorem proving for imperative programs. More specifically, we describe the creation of customised induction rules that are tailormade for the specific program to verify and thus make the resulting proof simpler. The conce ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This thesis is aimed at simplifying the userinteraction in semiinteractive theorem proving for imperative programs. More specifically, we describe the creation of customised induction rules that are tailormade for the specific program to verify and thus make the resulting proof simpler. The concern is in user interaction, rather than in proof strength. To achieve this, two different verification techniques are used. In the first approach, we develop an idea where a software testing technique, partition analysis, is used to compute a partition of the domain of the induction variable, based on the branch predicates in the program we wish to prove correct. Based on this partition we derive mechanically a partitioned induction rule, which then inherits the divideandconquer style of partition analysis, and (hopefully) is easier to use than the standard (Peano) induction rule. The second part of the thesis continues with a more thorough development of the method. Here the connection to software testing is completely removed
ProofPattern Recognition and Lemma Discovery in ACL2
 In 19th Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR19
"... Abstract. We present a novel technique for combining statistical machine learning for proofpattern recognition with symbolic methods for lemma discovery. The resulting tool, ACL2(ml), gathers proof statistics and uses statistical patternrecognition to preprocesses data from libraries, and then ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We present a novel technique for combining statistical machine learning for proofpattern recognition with symbolic methods for lemma discovery. The resulting tool, ACL2(ml), gathers proof statistics and uses statistical patternrecognition to preprocesses data from libraries, and then suggests auxiliary lemmas in new proofs by analogy with already seen examples. This paper presents the implementation of ACL2(ml) alongside theoretical descriptions of the proofpattern recognition and lemma discovery methods involved in it.
Automating inductive proofs using theory exploration
 In Proceedings 24th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE24), LNCS
, 2013
"... Abstract. HipSpec is a system for automatically deriving and proving properties about functional programs. It uses a novel approach, combining theory exploration, counterexample testing and inductive theorem proving. HipSpec automatically generates a set of equational theorems about the available re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. HipSpec is a system for automatically deriving and proving properties about functional programs. It uses a novel approach, combining theory exploration, counterexample testing and inductive theorem proving. HipSpec automatically generates a set of equational theorems about the available recursive functions of a program. These equational properties make up an algebraic specification for the program and can in addition be used as a background theory for proving additional userstated properties. Experimental results are encouraging: HipSpec compares favourably to other inductive theorem provers and theory exploration systems. 1
Reasoned Modelling Critics: Turning Failed Proofs into Modelling Guidance
"... The activities of formal modelling and reasoning are closely related. But while the rigour of building formal models brings significant benefits, formal reasoning remains a major barrier to the wider acceptance of formalism within design. Here we propose reasoned modelling critics – a technique wh ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The activities of formal modelling and reasoning are closely related. But while the rigour of building formal models brings significant benefits, formal reasoning remains a major barrier to the wider acceptance of formalism within design. Here we propose reasoned modelling critics – a technique which aims to abstract away from the complexities of lowlevel proof obligations, and provide highlevel modelling guidance to designers when proofs fail. Inspired by proof planning critics, the technique combines prooffailure analysis with modelling heuristics. Here, we present the details of our proposal and outline future plans.