Strategic Issues, Problems and Challenges in Inductive Theorem Proving

Abstract(Automated) Inductive Theorem Proving (ITP) is a challenging field in automated reasoning and theorem proving. Typically, (Automated) Theorem Proving (TP) refers to methods, techniques and tools for automatically proving general (most often first-order) theorems. Nowadays, the field of TP has reached a certain degree of maturity and powerful TP systems are widely available and used. The situation with ITP is strikingly different, in the sense that proving inductive theorems in an essentially automatic way still is a very challenging task, even for the most advanced existing ITP systems. Both in general TP and in ITP, strategies for guiding the proof search process are of fundamental importance, in automated as well as in interactive or mixed settings. In the paper we will analyze and discuss the most important strategic and proof search issues in ITP, compare ITP with TP, and argue why ITP is in a sense much more challenging. More generally, we will systematically isolate, investigate and classify the main problems and challenges in ITP w.r.t. automation, on different levels and from different points of views. Finally, based on this analysis we will present some theses about the state of the art in the field, possible criteria for what could be considered as substantial progress, and promising lines of research for the future, towards (more) automated ITP

Automated deduction with built-in theories: completeness results and constraint solving techniques

Postprint (published version

Deduction with XOR Constraints in Security API Modelling

We introduce XOR constraints, and show how they enable a theorem prover to reason effectively about security critical subsystems which employ bitwise XOR. Our primary case study is the API of the IBM 4758 hardware security module. We also show how our technique can be applied to standard security protocols

Attacking Group Protocols by Refuting Incorrect Inductive Conjectures

Automated tools for finding attacks on flawed security protocols often fail to deal adequately with group protocols. This is because the abstractions made to improve performance on fixed 2 or 3 party protocols either preclude the modelling of group protocols all together, or permit modelling only in a fixed scenario, which can prevent attacks from being discovered. This paper describes Coral, a tool for finding counterexamples to incorrect inductive conjectures, which we have used to model protocols for both group key agreement and group key management, without any restrictions on the scenario. We will show how we used Coral to discover 6 previously unknown attacks on 3 group protocols

The use of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics

This paper discusses the usse of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics. It was presented at the Workshop on Computer-Supported Mathematical Theory Development held at IJCAR in 2004. The aim of this project is to evaluate the applicability of data-mining techniques to the automatic formation of tactics from large corpuses of proofs. We data-mine information from large proof corpuses to find commonly occurring patterns. These patterns are then evolved into tactics using genetic programming techniques

A Framework for the Flexible Integration of a Class of Decision Procedures into Theorem Provers

The role of decision procedures is often essential in theorem proving. Decision procedures can reduce the search space of heuristic components of a prover and increase its abilities. However, in some applications only a small number of conjectures fall within the scope of the available decision procedures. Some of these conjectures could in an informal sense fall ‘just outside’ that scope. In these situations a problem arises because lemmas have to be invoked or the decision procedure has to communicate with the heuristic component of a theorem prover. This problem is also related to the general problem of how to exibly integrate decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers. In this paper we address such problems and describe a framework for the exible integration of decision procedures into other proof methods. The proposed framework can be used in different theorem provers, for different theories and for different decision procedures. New decision procedures can be simply ‘plugged-in’ to the system. As an illustration, we describe an instantiation of this framework within the Clam proof-planning system, to which it is well suited. We report on some results using this implementation