05431 Abstracts Collection -- Deduction and Applications

From 23.10.05 to 28.10.05, the Dagstuhl Seminar 05431 ``Deduction and Applications\u27\u27 was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

Mathematical applications of inductive logic programming

Accepted versio

An integrated approach to high integrity software verification.

Computer software is developed through software engineering. At its most precise, software engineering involves mathematical rigour as formal methods. High integrity software is associated with safety critical and security critical applications, where failure would bring significant costs. The development of high integrity software is subject to stringent standards, prescribing best practises to increase quality. Typically, these standards will strongly encourage or enforce the application of formal methods. The application of formal methods can entail a significant amount of mathematical reasoning. Thus, the development of automated techniques is an active area of research. The trend is to deliver increased automation through two complementary approaches. Firstly, lightweight formal methods are adopted, sacrificing expressive power, breadth of coverage, or both in favour of tractability. Secondly, integrated solutions are sought, exploiting the strengths of different technologies to increase automation. The objective of this thesis is to support the production of high integrity software by automating an aspect of formal methods. To develop tractable techniques we focus on the niche activity of verifying exception freedom. To increase effectiveness, we integrate the complementary technologies of proof planning and program analysis. Our approach is investigated by enhancing the SPARK Approach, as developed by Altran Praxis Limited. Our approach is implemented and evaluated as the SPADEase system. The key contributions of the thesis are summarised below: • Configurable and Sound - Present a configurable and justifiably sound approach to software verification. • Cooperative Integration - Demonstrate that more targeted and effective automation can be achieved through the cooperative integration of distinct technologies. • Proof Discovery - Present proof plans that support the verification of exception freedom. • Invariant Discovery - Present invariant discovery heuristics that support the verification of exception freedom. • Implementation as SPADEase - Implement our approach as SPADEase. • Industrial Evaluation - Evaluate SPADEase against both textbook and industrial subprograms

JWalk: a tool for lazy, systematic testing of java classes by design introspection and user interaction

Popular software testing tools, such as JUnit, allow frequent retesting of modified code; yet the manually created test scripts are often seriously incomplete. A unit-testing tool called JWalk has therefore been developed to address the need for systematic unit testing within the context of agile methods. The tool operates directly on the compiled code for Java classes and uses a new lazy method for inducing the changing design of a class on the fly. This is achieved partly through introspection, using Java’s reflection capability, and partly through interaction with the user, constructing and saving test oracles on the fly. Predictive rules reduce the number of oracle values that must be confirmed by the tester. Without human intervention, JWalk performs bounded exhaustive exploration of the class’s method protocols and may be directed to explore the space of algebraic constructions, or the intended design state-space of the tested class. With some human interaction, JWalk performs up to the equivalent of fully automated state-based testing, from a specification that was acquired incrementally

A Tool for Producing Verified, Explainable Proofs

Mathematicians are reluctant to use interactive theorem provers. In this thesis I argue that this is because proof assistants don't emphasise explanations of proofs; and that in order to produce good explanations, the system must create proofs in a manner that mimics how humans would create proofs. My research goals are to determine what constitutes a human-like proof and to represent human-like reasoning within an interactive theorem prover to create formalised, understandable proofs. Another goal is to produce a framework to visualise the goal states of this system. To demonstrate this, I present HumanProof: a piece of software built for the Lean 3 theorem prover. It is used for interactively creating proofs that resemble how human mathematicians reason. The system provides a visual, hierarchical representation of the goal and a system for suggesting available inference rules. The system produces output in the form of both natural language and formal proof terms which are checked by Lean's kernel. This is made possible with the use of a structured goal state system which interfaces with Lean's tactic system which is detailed in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I present the subtasks automation planning subsystem, which is used to produce equality proofs in a human-like fashion. The basic strategy of the subtasks system is break a given equality problem in to a hierarchy of tasks and then maintain a stack of these tasks in order to determine the order in which to apply equational rewriting moves. This process produces equality chains for simple problems without having to resort to brute force or specialised procedures such as normalisation. This makes proofs more human-like by breaking the problem into a hierarchical set of tasks in the same way that a human would. To produce the interface for this software, I also created the ProofWidgets system for Lean 3. This system is detailed in Chapter 5. The ProofWidgets system uses Lean's metaprogramming framework to allow users to write their own interactive, web-based user interfaces to display within the VSCode editor and in an online web-editor. The entire tactic state is available to the rendering engine, and hence expression structure and types of subexpressions can be explored interactively. The ProofWidgets system also allows the user interface to interactively edit the proof document, enabling a truly interactive modality for creating proofs; human-like or not. In Chapter 6, the system is evaluated by asking real mathematicians about the output of the system, and what it means for a proof to be understandable to them. The user group study asks participants to rank and comment on proofs created by HumanProof alongside natural language and pure Lean proofs. The study finds that participants generally prefer the HumanProof format over the Lean format. The verbal responses collected during the study indicate that providing intuition and signposting are the most important properties of a proof that aid understanding.EPSR

Goal driven theorem proving using conceptual graphs and Peirce logic

The thesis describes a rational reconstruction of Sowa's theory of Conceptual Graphs. The reconstruction produces a theory with a firmer logical foundation than was previously the case and which is suitable for computation whilst retaining the expressiveness of the original theory. Also, several areas of incompleteness are addressed. These mainly concern the scope of operations on conceptual graphs of different types but include extensions for logics of higher orders than first order. An important innovation is the placing of negation onto a sound representational basis. A comparison of theorem proving techniques is made from which the principles of theorem proving in Peirce logic are identified. As a result, a set of derived inference rules, suitable for a goal driven approach to theorem proving, is developed from Peirce's beta rules. These derived rules, the first of their kind for Peirce logic and conceptual graphs, allow the development of a novel theorem proving approach which has some similarities to a combined semantic tableau and resolution methodology. With this methodology it is shown that a logically complete yet tractable system is possible. An important result is the identification of domain independent heuristics which follow directly from the methodology. In addition to the theorem prover, an efficient system for the detection of selectional constraint violations is developed. The proof techniques are used to build a working knowledge base system in Prolog which can accept arbitrary statements represented by conceptual graphs and test their semantic and logical consistency against a dynamic knowledge base. The same proof techniques are used to find solutions to arbitrary queries. Since the system is logically complete it can maintain the integrity of its knowledge base and answer queries in a fully automated manner. Thus the system is completely declarative and does not require any programming whatever by a user with the result that all interaction with a user is conversational. Finally, the system is compared with other theorem proving systems which are based upon Conceptual Graphs and conclusions about the effectiveness of the methodology are drawn

Proceedings of the Joint Automated Reasoning Workshop and Deduktionstreffen: As part of the Vienna Summer of Logic – IJCAR 23-24 July 2014

Preface For many years the British and the German automated reasoning communities have successfully run independent series of workshops for anybody working in the area of automated reasoning. Although open to the general public they addressed in the past primarily the British and the German communities, respectively. At the occasion of the Vienna Summer of Logic the two series have a joint event in Vienna as an IJCAR workshop. In the spirit of the two series there will be only informal proceedings with abstracts of the works presented. These are collected in this document. We have tried to maintain the informal open atmosphere of the two series and have welcomed in particular research students to present their work. We have solicited for all work related to automated reasoning and its applications with a particular interest in work-in-progress and the presentation of half-baked ideas. As in the previous years, we have aimed to bring together researchers from all areas of automated reasoning in order to foster links among researchers from various disciplines; among theoreticians, implementers and users alike, and among international communities, this year not just the British and German communities