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

Scavenger 0.1: A Theorem Prover Based on Conflict Resolution

This paper introduces Scavenger, the first theorem prover for pure first-order logic without equality based on the new conflict resolution calculus. Conflict resolution has a restricted resolution inference rule that resembles (a first-order generalization of) unit propagation as well as a rule for assuming decision literals and a rule for deriving new clauses by (a first-order generalization of) conflict-driven clause learning.Comment: Published at CADE 201

A Proof Strategy Language and Proof Script Generation for Isabelle/HOL

We introduce a language, PSL, designed to capture high level proof strategies in Isabelle/HOL. Given a strategy and a proof obligation, PSL's runtime system generates and combines various tactics to explore a large search space with low memory usage. Upon success, PSL generates an efficient proof script, which bypasses a large part of the proof search. We also present PSL's monadic interpreter to show that the underlying idea of PSL is transferable to other ITPs.Comment: This paper has been submitted to CADE2

Building and Combining Matching Algorithms

International audienceThe concept of matching is ubiquitous in declarative programming and in automated reasoning. For instance, it is a key mechanism to run rule-based programs and to simplify clauses generated by theorem provers. A matching problem can be seen as a particular conjunction of equations where each equation has a ground side. We give an overview of techniques that can be applied to build and combine matching algorithms. First, we survey mutation-based techniques as a way to build a generic matching algorithm for a large class of equational theories. Second, combination techniques are introduced to get combined matching algorithms for disjoint unions of theories. Then we show how these combination algorithms can be extended to handle non-disjoint unions of theories sharing only constructors. These extensions are possible if an appropriate notion of normal form is computable

Removing Algebraic Data Types from Constrained Horn Clauses Using Difference Predicates

We address the problem of proving the satisfiability of Constrained Horn Clauses (CHCs) with Algebraic Data Types (ADTs), such as lists and trees. We propose a new technique for transforming CHCs with ADTs into CHCs where predicates are defined over basic types, such as integers and booleans, only. Thus, our technique avoids the explicit use of inductive proof rules during satisfiability proofs. The main extension over previous techniques for ADT removal is a new transformation rule, called differential replacement, which allows us to introduce auxiliary predicates corresponding to the lemmas that are often needed when making inductive proofs. We present an algorithm that uses the new rule, together with the traditional folding/unfolding transformation rules, for the automatic removal of ADTs. We prove that if the set of the transformed clauses is satisfiable, then so is the set of the original clauses. By an experimental evaluation, we show that the use of the differential replacement rule significantly improves the effectiveness of ADT removal, and we show that our transformation-based approach is competitive with respect to a well-established technique that extends the CVC4 solver with induction.Comment: 10th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2020) - version with appendix; added DOI of the final authenticated Springer publication; minor correction

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

Decidability of the Monadic Shallow Linear First-Order Fragment with Straight Dismatching Constraints

The monadic shallow linear Horn fragment is well-known to be decidable and has many application, e.g., in security protocol analysis, tree automata, or abstraction refinement. It was a long standing open problem how to extend the fragment to the non-Horn case, preserving decidability, that would, e.g., enable to express non-determinism in protocols. We prove decidability of the non-Horn monadic shallow linear fragment via ordered resolution further extended with dismatching constraints and discuss some applications of the new decidable fragment.Comment: 29 pages, long version of CADE-26 pape