Automated Generation of User Guidance by Combining Computation and Deduction

Herewith, a fairly old concept is published for the first time and named "Lucas Interpretation". This has been implemented in a prototype, which has been proved useful in educational practice and has gained academic relevance with an emerging generation of educational mathematics assistants (EMA) based on Computer Theorem Proving (CTP). Automated Theorem Proving (ATP), i.e. deduction, is the most reliable technology used to check user input. However ATP is inherently weak in automatically generating solutions for arbitrary problems in applied mathematics. This weakness is crucial for EMAs: when ATP checks user input as incorrect and the learner gets stuck then the system should be able to suggest possible next steps. The key idea of Lucas Interpretation is to compute the steps of a calculation following a program written in a novel CTP-based programming language, i.e. computation provides the next steps. User guidance is generated by combining deduction and computation: the latter is performed by a specific language interpreter, which works like a debugger and hands over control to the learner at breakpoints, i.e. tactics generating the steps of calculation. The interpreter also builds up logical contexts providing ATP with the data required for checking user input, thus combining computation and deduction. The paper describes the concepts underlying Lucas Interpretation so that open questions can adequately be addressed, and prerequisites for further work are provided.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Mechanized semantics

The goal of this lecture is to show how modern theorem provers---in this case, the Coq proof assistant---can be used to mechanize the specification of programming languages and their semantics, and to reason over individual programs and over generic program transformations, as typically found in compilers. The topics covered include: operational semantics (small-step, big-step, definitional interpreters); a simple form of denotational semantics; axiomatic semantics and Hoare logic; generation of verification conditions, with application to program proof; compilation to virtual machine code and its proof of correctness; an example of an optimizing program transformation (dead code elimination) and its proof of correctness

Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds

A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial time lower bounds for solving natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, Mod6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. The proofs of these lower bounds follow a certain proof-by-contradiction strategy that we call alternation-trading. An important open problem is to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be. We propose a methodology for studying these proofs that makes them amenable to both formal analysis and automated theorem proving. We prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. Implementing a small-scale theorem prover based on this result, we extract new human-readable time lower bounds for several problems. This framework can also be used to prove concrete limitations on the current techniques.Comment: To appear in STACS 2010, 12 page

A Comparative Study of Coq and HOL

This paper illustrates the differences between the style of theory mechanisation of Coq and of HOL. This comparative study is based on the mechanisation of fragments of the theory of computation in these systems. Examples from these implementations are given to support some of the arguments discussed in this paper. The mechanisms for specifying definitions and for theorem proving are discussed separately, building in parallel two pictures of the different approaches of mechanisation given by these systems

Step-Indexed Normalization for a Language with General Recursion

The Trellys project has produced several designs for practical dependently typed languages. These languages are broken into two fragments-a_logical_fragment where every term normalizes and which is consistent when interpreted as a logic, and a_programmatic_fragment with general recursion and other convenient but unsound features. In this paper, we present a small example language in this style. Our design allows the programmer to explicitly mention and pass information between the two fragments. We show that this feature substantially complicates the metatheory and present a new technique, combining the traditional Girard-Tait method with step-indexed logical relations, which we use to show normalization for the logical fragment.Comment: In Proceedings MSFP 2012, arXiv:1202.240

An Exercise in Invariant-based Programming with Interactive and Automatic Theorem Prover Support

Invariant-Based Programming (IBP) is a diagram-based correct-by-construction programming methodology in which the program is structured around the invariants, which are additionally formulated before the actual code. Socos is a program construction and verification environment built specifically to support IBP. The front-end to Socos is a graphical diagram editor, allowing the programmer to construct invariant-based programs and check their correctness. The back-end component of Socos, the program checker, computes the verification conditions of the program and tries to prove them automatically. It uses the theorem prover PVS and the SMT solver Yices to discharge as many of the verification conditions as possible without user interaction. In this paper, we first describe the Socos environment from a user and systems level perspective; we then exemplify the IBP workflow by building a verified implementation of heapsort in Socos. The case study highlights the role of both automatic and interactive theorem proving in three sequential stages of the IBP workflow: developing the background theory, formulating the program specification and invariants, and proving the correctness of the final implementation.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Applied Type System: An Approach to Practical Programming with Theorem-Proving

The framework Pure Type System (PTS) offers a simple and general approach to designing and formalizing type systems. However, in the presence of dependent types, there often exist certain acute problems that make it difficult for PTS to directly accommodate many common realistic programming features such as general recursion, recursive types, effects (e.g., exceptions, references, input/output), etc. In this paper, Applied Type System (ATS) is presented as a framework for designing and formalizing type systems in support of practical programming with advanced types (including dependent types). In particular, it is demonstrated that ATS can readily accommodate a paradigm referred to as programming with theorem-proving (PwTP) in which programs and proofs are constructed in a syntactically intertwined manner, yielding a practical approach to internalizing constraint-solving needed during type-checking. The key salient feature of ATS lies in a complete separation between statics, where types are formed and reasoned about, and dynamics, where programs are constructed and evaluated. With this separation, it is no longer possible for a program to occur in a type as is otherwise allowed in PTS. The paper contains not only a formal development of ATS but also some examples taken from ats-lang.org, a programming language with a type system rooted in ATS, in support of employing ATS as a framework to formulate advanced type systems for practical programming