A Graphical Language for Proof Strategies

Complex automated proof strategies are often difficult to extract, visualise, modify, and debug. Traditional tactic languages, often based on stack-based goal propagation, make it easy to write proofs that obscure the flow of goals between tactics and are fragile to minor changes in input, proof structure or changes to tactics themselves. Here, we address this by introducing a graphical language called PSGraph for writing proof strategies. Strategies are constructed visually by "wiring together" collections of tactics and evaluated by propagating goal nodes through the diagram via graph rewriting. Tactic nodes can have many output wires, and use a filtering procedure based on goal-types (predicates describing the features of a goal) to decide where best to send newly-generated sub-goals. In addition to making the flow of goal information explicit, the graphical language can fulfil the role of many tacticals using visual idioms like branching, merging, and feedback loops. We argue that this language enables development of more robust proof strategies and provide several examples, along with a prototype implementation in Isabelle

TOR: modular search with hookable disjunction

Horn Clause Programs have a natural exhaustive depth-first procedural semantics. However, for many programs this semantics is ineffective. In order to compute useful solutions, one needs the ability to modify the search method that explores the alternative execution branches. Tor, a well-defined hook into Prolog disjunction, provides this ability. It is light-weight thanks to its library approach and efficient because it is based on program transformation. Tor is general enough to mimic search-modifying predicates like ECLiPSe's search/6. Moreover, Tor supports modular composition of search methods and other hooks. The Tor library is already provided and used as an add-on to SWI-Prolog.publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Tor: Modular search with hookable disjunction journaltitle: Science of Computer Programming articlelink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2013.05.008 content_type: article copyright: Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.status: publishe

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

Extensible sparse functional arrays with circuit parallelism

A longstanding open question in algorithms and data structures is the time and space complexity of pure functional arrays. Imperative arrays provide update and lookup operations that require constant time in the RAM theoretical model, but it is conjectured that there does not exist a RAM algorithm that achieves the same complexity for functional arrays, unless restrictions are placed on the operations. The main result of this paper is an algorithm that does achieve optimal unit time and space complexity for update and lookup on functional arrays. This algorithm does not run on a RAM, but instead it exploits the massive parallelism inherent in digital circuits. The algorithm also provides unit time operations that support storage management, as well as sparse and extensible arrays. The main idea behind the algorithm is to replace a RAM memory by a tree circuit that is more powerful than the RAM yet has the same asymptotic complexity in time (gate delays) and size (number of components). The algorithm uses an array representation that allows elements to be shared between many arrays with only a small constant factor penalty in space and time. This system exemplifies circuit parallelism, which exploits very large numbers of transistors per chip in order to speed up key algorithms. Extensible Sparse Functional Arrays (ESFA) can be used with both functional and imperative programming languages. The system comprises a set of algorithms and a circuit specification, and it has been implemented on a GPGPU with good performance

Improving the Search Capabilities of a CFLP(FD) System

The CFLP system TOY(FD) is implemented in SICStus Prolog, and supports FD constraints by interfacing the CP(FD) solvers of Gecode and ILOG Solver. In this paper TOY(FD) is extended with new search primitives, in a setting easily adaptable to other Prolog CLP or CFLP systems. The primitives are described from a solver-independent point of view, pointing out some novel concepts not directly available in the Gecode and ILOG Solver libraries, as well as how to specify some search criteria at TOY(FD) level and how easily these strategies can be combined to set different search scenarios. The implementation of the primitives is described, presenting an abstract view of the requirements and how they are targeted to the Gecode and ILOG libraries. Finally, some benchmarks show that the new search strategies improve the solving performance of TOY(FD)

Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience

Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming