Results 1  10
of
31
OMDoc an open markup format for mathematical documents (version 1.2
 Number 4180 in LNAI
, 2006
"... This Document is an online version of the OMDoc 1.2 Specification published by ..."
Abstract

Cited by 150 (34 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This Document is an online version of the OMDoc 1.2 Specification published by
Automation for interactive proof: First prototype
 Information and Computation
"... Interactive theorem provers require too much effort from their users. We have been developing a system in which Isabelle users obtain automatic support from automatic theorem provers (ATPs) such as Vampire and SPASS. An ATP is invoked at suitable points in the interactive session, and any proof foun ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Interactive theorem provers require too much effort from their users. We have been developing a system in which Isabelle users obtain automatic support from automatic theorem provers (ATPs) such as Vampire and SPASS. An ATP is invoked at suitable points in the interactive session, and any proof found is given to the user in a window displaying an Isar proof script. There are numerous differences between Isabelle (polymorphic higherorder logic with type classes, natural deduction rule format) and classical ATPs (firstorder, untyped, clause form). Many of these differences have been bridged, and a working prototype that uses background processes already provides much of the desired functionality. 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 28 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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.
Sledgehammer: Judgement Day
"... Sledgehammer, a component of the interactive theorem prover Isabelle, finds proofs in higherorder logic by calling the automated provers for firstorder logic E, SPASS and Vampire. This paper is the largest and most detailed empirical evaluation of such a link to date. Our test data consists of 12 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Sledgehammer, a component of the interactive theorem prover Isabelle, finds proofs in higherorder logic by calling the automated provers for firstorder logic E, SPASS and Vampire. This paper is the largest and most detailed empirical evaluation of such a link to date. Our test data consists of 1240 proof goals arising in 7 diverse Isabelle theories, thus representing typical Isabelle proof obligations. We measure the effectiveness of Sledgehammer and many other parameters such as run time and complexity of proofs. A facility for minimizing the number of facts needed to prove a goal is presented and analyzed.
MetiTarski: An Automatic Theorem Prover for RealValued Special Functions
"... Abstract Many theorems involving special functions such as ln, exp and sin can be proved automatically by MetiTarski: a resolution theorem prover modified to call a decision procedure for the theory of real closed fields. Special functions are approximated by upper and lower bounds, which are typica ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract Many theorems involving special functions such as ln, exp and sin can be proved automatically by MetiTarski: a resolution theorem prover modified to call a decision procedure for the theory of real closed fields. Special functions are approximated by upper and lower bounds, which are typically rational functions derived from Taylor or continued fraction expansions. The decision procedure simplifies clauses by deleting literals that are inconsistent with other algebraic facts. MetiTarski simplifies arithmetic expressions by conversion to a recursive representation, followed by flattening of nested quotients. Applications include verifying hybrid and control systems.
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 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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
THF0 – The Core TPTP Language for Classical HigherOrder Logic
"... Abstract. There is a well established infrastructure that supports research, development, and deployment of firstorder Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) systems, stemming from the Thousands of Problems for Theorem Provers (TPTP) problem library. One of the keys to the success of the TPTP and related ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. There is a well established infrastructure that supports research, development, and deployment of firstorder Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) systems, stemming from the Thousands of Problems for Theorem Provers (TPTP) problem library. One of the keys to the success of the TPTP and related infrastructure is the consistent use of the TPTP language. This paper introduces the core TPTP language for classical higherorder logic (Church’s simple type theory) – THF0. THF0 is a conservative extension of the existing firstorder TPTP language. The use of THF0 in building higherorder analogs of some of the existing firstorder TPTP infrastructure is explained. 1
On handling distinct objects in the superposition calculus
 In Notes 5th IWIL Workshop
, 2005
"... Abstract. Many domains of reasoning include a set of distinct objects. For generalpurpose automated theorem provers, this property has to be specified explicitly, by including distinctness axioms. Since their number grows quadratically with the number of distinct objects, this results in large and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Many domains of reasoning include a set of distinct objects. For generalpurpose automated theorem provers, this property has to be specified explicitly, by including distinctness axioms. Since their number grows quadratically with the number of distinct objects, this results in large and clumsy specifications, that may affect performance adversely. We show that object distinctness can be handled directly by a modified superpositionbased inference system, including additional inference rules. The new calculus is shown to be sound and complete. A preliminary implementation shows promising results in the theory of arrays. 1
MaLARea: a Metasystem for Automated Reasoning in Large Theories
"... MaLARea (a Machine Learner for Automated Reasoning) is a simple metasystem iteratively combining deductive Automated Reasoning tools (now the E and the SPASS ATP systems) with a machine learning component (now the SNoW system used in the naive Bayesian learning mode). Its intended use is in large th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
MaLARea (a Machine Learner for Automated Reasoning) is a simple metasystem iteratively combining deductive Automated Reasoning tools (now the E and the SPASS ATP systems) with a machine learning component (now the SNoW system used in the naive Bayesian learning mode). Its intended use is in large theories, i.e. on a large number of problems which in a consistent fashion use many axioms, lemmas, theorems, definitions and symbols. The system works in cycles of theorem proving followed by machine learning from successful proofs, using the learned information to prune the set of available axioms for the next theorem proving cycle. Although the metasystem is quite simple (ca. 1000 lines of Perl code), its design already now poses quite interesting questions about the nature of thinking, in particular, about how (and if and when) to combine learning from previous experience to attack difficult unsolved problems. The first version of MaLARea has been tested on the more difficult (chainy) division of the MPTP Challenge solving 142 problems out of 252, in comparison to E’s 89 and SPASS ’ 81 solved problems. It also outperforms the SRASS metasystem, which also uses E and SPASS as components, and solves 126 problems. 1
L.: A flexible proof format for SMT: A proposal
, 2011
"... The standard input format for Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers has now reached its second version and integrates many of the features useful for users to interact with their favourite SMT solver. However, although many SMT solvers do output proofs, no standardised proof format exists. We ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The standard input format for Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers has now reached its second version and integrates many of the features useful for users to interact with their favourite SMT solver. However, although many SMT solvers do output proofs, no standardised proof format exists. We, here, propose for discussion at the PxTP Workshop a generic proof format in the SMTLIB philosophy that is flexible enough to be easily recast for any SMT solver. The format is configurable so that the proof can be provided by the solver at the desired level of detail. 1