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

Reasoned modelling critics: turning failed proofs into modelling guidance

The activities of formal modelling and reasoning are closely related. But while the rigour of building formal models brings significant benefits, formal reasoning remains a major barrier to the wider acceptance of formalism within design. Here we propose reasoned modelling critics — an approach which aims to abstract away from the complexities of low-level proof obligations, and provide high-level modelling guidance to designers when proofs fail. Inspired by proof planning critics, the technique combines proof-failure analysis with modelling heuristics. Here, we present the details of our proposal, implement them in a prototype and outline future plans

The Use of Proof Planning for Cooperative Theorem Proving

AbstractWe describebarnacle: a co-operative interface to theclaminductive theorem proving system. For the foreseeable future, there will be theorems which cannot be proved completely automatically, so the ability to allow human intervention is desirable; for this intervention to be productive the problem of orienting the user in the proof attempt must be overcome. There are many semi-automatic theorem provers: we call our style of theorem provingco-operative, in that the skills of both human and automaton are used each to their best advantage, and used together may find a proof where other methods fail. The co-operative nature of thebarnacleinterface is made possible by the proof planning technique underpinningclam. Our claim is that proof planning makes new kinds of user interaction possible.Proof planning is a technique for guiding the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. Common patterns of reasoning in proofs are identified and represented computationally as proof plans, which can then be used to guide the search for proofs of new conjectures. We have harnessed the explanatory power of proof planning to enable the user to understand where the automatic prover got to and why it is stuck. A user can analyse the failed proof in terms ofclam's specification language, and hence override the prover to force or prevent the application of a tactic, or discover a proof patch. This patch might be to apply further rules or tactics to bridge the gap between the effects of previous tactics and the preconditions needed by a currently inapplicable tactic

Coherent Integration of Databases by Abductive Logic Programming

We introduce an abductive method for a coherent integration of independent data-sources. The idea is to compute a list of data-facts that should be inserted to the amalgamated database or retracted from it in order to restore its consistency. This method is implemented by an abductive solver, called Asystem, that applies SLDNFA-resolution on a meta-theory that relates different, possibly contradicting, input databases. We also give a pure model-theoretic analysis of the possible ways to `recover' consistent data from an inconsistent database in terms of those models of the database that exhibit as minimal inconsistent information as reasonably possible. This allows us to characterize the `recovered databases' in terms of the `preferred' (i.e., most consistent) models of the theory. The outcome is an abductive-based application that is sound and complete with respect to a corresponding model-based, preferential semantics, and -- to the best of our knowledge -- is more expressive (thus more general) than any other implementation of coherent integration of databases

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