Results 1  10
of
556
PVS: A Prototype Verification System
 CADE
, 1992
"... PVS is a prototype system for writing specifications and constructing proofs. Its development has been shaped by our experiences studying or using several other systems and performing a number of rather substantial formal verifications (e.g., [5,6,8]). PVS is fully implemented and freely available. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 571 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
PVS is a prototype system for writing specifications and constructing proofs. Its development has been shaped by our experiences studying or using several other systems and performing a number of rather substantial formal verifications (e.g., [5,6,8]). PVS is fully implemented and freely available. It has been used to construct proofs of nontrivial difficulty with relatively modest amounts of human effort. Here, we describe some of the motivation behind PVS and provide some details of the system. Automated reasoning systems typically fall in one of two classes: those that provide powerful automation for an impoverished logic, and others that feature expressive logics but only limited automation. PVS attempts to tread the middle ground between these two classes by providing mechanical assistance to support clear and abstract specifications, and readable yet sound proofs for difficult theorems. Our goal is to provide mechanicallychecked specificati
The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs
 9th Conference on Automated Deduction
, 1988
"... We propose the use of explicit proof plans to guide the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. By representing proof plans as the specifications of LCFlike tactics, [Gordon et al 79], and by recording these specifications in a sorted metalogic, we are able to reason about the conjectures ..."
Abstract

Cited by 272 (38 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose the use of explicit proof plans to guide the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. By representing proof plans as the specifications of LCFlike tactics, [Gordon et al 79], and by recording these specifications in a sorted metalogic, we are able to reason about the conjectures to be proved and the methods available to prove them. In this way we can build proof plans of wide generality, formally account for and predict their successes and failures, apply them flexibly, recover from their failures, and learn them from example proofs. We illustrate this technique by building a proof plan based on a simple subset of the implicit proof plan embedded in the BoyerMoore theorem prover, [Boyer & Moore 79]. Keywords Proof plans, inductive proofs, theorem proving, automatic programming, formal methods, planning. Acknowledgements I am grateful for many long conversations with other members of the mathematical reasoning group, from which many of the ideas in this paper e...
Termination of Term Rewriting Using Dependency Pairs
 Comput. Sci
, 2000
"... We present techniques to prove termination and innermost termination of term rewriting systems automatically. In contrast to previous approaches, we do not compare left and righthand sides of rewrite rules, but introduce the notion of dependency pairs to compare lefthand sides with special subter ..."
Abstract

Cited by 229 (46 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present techniques to prove termination and innermost termination of term rewriting systems automatically. In contrast to previous approaches, we do not compare left and righthand sides of rewrite rules, but introduce the notion of dependency pairs to compare lefthand sides with special subterms of the righthand sides. This results in a technique which allows to apply existing methods for automated termination proofs to term rewriting systems where they failed up to now. In particular, there are numerous term rewriting systems where a direct termination proof with simplification orderings is not possible, but in combination with our technique, wellknown simplification orderings (such as the recursive path ordering, polynomial orderings, or the KnuthBendix ordering) can now be used to prove termination automatically. Unlike previous methods, our technique for proving innermost termination automatically can also be applied to prove innermost termination of term rewriting systems that are not terminating. Moreover, as innermost termination implies termination for certain classes of term rewriting systems, this technique can also be used for termination proofs of such systems.
Explanation and Prediction: An Architecture for Default and Abductive Reasoning
 Computational Intelligence
, 1993
"... Although there are many arguments that logic is an appropriate tool for artificial intelligence, there has been a perceived problem with the monotonicity of classical logic. This paper elaborates on the idea that reasoning should be viewed as theory formation where logic tells us the consequences of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 133 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Although there are many arguments that logic is an appropriate tool for artificial intelligence, there has been a perceived problem with the monotonicity of classical logic. This paper elaborates on the idea that reasoning should be viewed as theory formation where logic tells us the consequences of our assumptions. The two activities of predicting what is expected to be true and explaining observations are considered in a simple theory formation framework. Properties of each activity are discussed, along with a number of proposals as to what should be predicted or accepted as reasonable explanations. An architecture is proposed to combine explanation and prediction into one coherent framework. Algorithms used to implement the system as well as examples from a running implementation are given. Key words: defaults, conjectures, explanation, prediction, abduction, dialectics, logic, nonmonotonicity, theory formation Explanation and Prediction 2 1 Introduction One way to do research i...
Integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic
 Machine Intelligence
, 1988
"... We discuss the problem of incorporating into a heuristic theorem prover a decision procedure for a fragment of the logic. An obvious goal when incorporating such a procedure is to reduce the search space explored by the heuristic component of the system, as would be achieved by eliminating from the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 111 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We discuss the problem of incorporating into a heuristic theorem prover a decision procedure for a fragment of the logic. An obvious goal when incorporating such a procedure is to reduce the search space explored by the heuristic component of the system, as would be achieved by eliminating from the system’s data base some explicitly stated axioms. For example, if a decision procedure for linear inequalities is added, one would hope to eliminate the explicit consideration of the transitivity axioms. However, the decision procedure must then be used in all the ways the eliminated axioms might have been. The difficulty of achieving this degree of integration is more dependent upon the complexity of the heuristic component than upon that of the decision procedure. The view of the decision procedure as a &quot;black box &quot; is frequently destroyed by the need pass large amounts of search strategic information back and forth between the two components. Finally, the efficiency of the decision procedure may be virtually irrelevant; the efficiency of the final system may depend most heavily on how easy it is to communicate between the two components. This paper is a case study of how we integrated a linear arithmetic procedure into a heuristic theorem prover. By linear arithmetic here we mean the decidable subset of number theory dealing with universally quantified formulas composed of the logical connectives, the identity relation, the Peano &quot;less than &quot; relation, the Peano addition and subtraction functions, Peano constants,
Productive Use of Failure in Inductive Proof
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1995
"... Proof by mathematical induction gives rise to various kinds of eureka steps, e.g. missing lemmata, generalization, etc. Most inductive theorem provers rely upon user intervention in supplying the required eureka steps. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 101 (25 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Proof by mathematical induction gives rise to various kinds of eureka steps, e.g. missing lemmata, generalization, etc. Most inductive theorem provers rely upon user intervention in supplying the required eureka steps.
Formal Verification in Hardware Design: A Survey
 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON DESIGN AUTOMATION OF ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
, 1999
"... ..."
Experiments with Proof Plans for Induction
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1992
"... The technique of proof plans, is explained. This technique is used to guide automatic inference in order to avoid a combinatorial explosion. Empirical research is described to test this technique in the domain of theorem proving by mathematical induction. Heuristics, adapted from the work of Boye ..."
Abstract

Cited by 96 (34 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The technique of proof plans, is explained. This technique is used to guide automatic inference in order to avoid a combinatorial explosion. Empirical research is described to test this technique in the domain of theorem proving by mathematical induction. Heuristics, adapted from the work of Boyer and Moore, have been implemented as Prolog programs, called tactics, and used to guide an inductive proof checker, Oyster. These tactics have been partially specified in a metalogic, and the plan formation program, clam, has been used to reason with these specifications and form plans. These plans are then executed by running their associated tactics and, hence, performing an Oyster proof. Results are presented of the use of this technique on a number of standard theorems from the literature. Searching in the planning space is shown to be considerably cheaper than searching directly in Oyster's search space. The success rate on the standard theorems is high. Keywords Theorem prov...