A Complete Cyclic Proof System for Inductive Entailments in First Order Logic

International audienceIn this paper we develop a cyclic proof system for the problem of inclusion between the least sets of models of mutually recursive predicates, when the ground constraints in the inductive definitions are quantifier-free formulae of first order logic. The proof system consists of a small set of inference rules, inspired by a top-down language inclusion algorithm for tree automata [9]. We show the proof system to be sound, in general, and complete, under certain semantic restrictions involving the set of constraints in the inductive system. Moreover, we investigate the computational complexity of checking these restrictions, when the function symbols in the logic are given the canonical Herbrand interpretation

An Entailment Checker for Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions An Entailment Checker for Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions

International audienceIn this paper, we present Inductor, a checker for entailments between mutually recursive predicates, whose inductive definitions contain ground constraints belonging to the quantifier-free fragment of Separation Logic. Our tool implements a proof-search method for a cyclic proof system that we have shown to be sound and complete, under certain semantic restrictions involving the set of constraints in a given inductive system. Dedicated decision procedures from the DPLL(T)-based SMT solver CVC4 are used to establish the satisfiability of Separation Logic formu-lae. Given inductive predicate definitions, an entailment query, and a proof-search strategy, Inductor uses a compact tree structure to explore all derivations enabled by the strategy. A successful result is accompanied by a proof, while an unsuccessful one is supported by a counterexample

An Entailment Checker for Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions

In this paper, we present Inductor, a checker for entailments between mutually recursive predicates, whose inductive definitions contain ground constraints belonging to the quantifier-free fragment of Separation Logic. Our tool implements a proof-search method for a cyclic proof system that we have shown to be sound and complete, under certain semantic restrictions involving the set of constraints in a given inductive system. Dedicated decision procedures from the DPLL(T)-based SMT solver CVC4 are used to establish the satisfiability of Separation Logic formulae. Given inductive predicate definitions, an entailment query, and a proof-search strategy, Inductor uses a compact tree structure to explore all derivations enabled by the strategy. A successful result is accompanied by a proof, while an unsuccessful one is supported by a counterexample

Towards Automated Reasoning in Herbrand Structures

Herbrand structures have the advantage, computationally speaking, of being guided by the definability of all elements in them. A salient feature of the logics induced by them is that they internally exhibit the induction scheme, thus providing a congenial, computationally-oriented framework for formal inductive reasoning. Nonetheless, their enhanced expressivity renders any effective proof system for them incomplete. Furthermore, the fact that they are not compact poses yet another prooftheoretic challenge. This paper offers several layers for coping with the inherent incompleteness and non-compactness of these logics. First, two types of infinitary proof system are introduced—one of infinite width and one of infinite height—which manipulate infinite sequents and are sound and complete for the intended semantics. The restriction of these systems to finite sequents induces a completeness result for finite entailments. Then, in search of effectiveness, two finite approximations of these systems are presented and explored. Interestingly, the approximation of the infinite-width system via an explicit induction scheme turns out to be weaker than the effective cyclic fragment of the infinite-height system

Disproving inductive entailments in separation logic via base pair approximation

We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete. Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments

Disproving inductive entailments in separation logic via base pair approximation

We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete. Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments