Learning to Prove Theorems via Interacting with Proof Assistants

Humans prove theorems by relying on substantial high-level reasoning and problem-specific insights. Proof assistants offer a formalism that resembles human mathematical reasoning, representing theorems in higher-order logic and proofs as high-level tactics. However, human experts have to construct proofs manually by entering tactics into the proof assistant. In this paper, we study the problem of using machine learning to automate the interaction with proof assistants. We construct CoqGym, a large-scale dataset and learning environment containing 71K human-written proofs from 123 projects developed with the Coq proof assistant. We develop ASTactic, a deep learning-based model that generates tactics as programs in the form of abstract syntax trees (ASTs). Experiments show that ASTactic trained on CoqGym can generate effective tactics and can be used to prove new theorems not previously provable by automated methods. Code is available at https://github.com/princeton-vl/CoqGym.Comment: Accepted to ICML 201

Context Semantics, Linear Logic and Computational Complexity

We show that context semantics can be fruitfully applied to the quantitative analysis of proof normalization in linear logic. In particular, context semantics lets us define the weight of a proof-net as a measure of its inherent complexity: it is both an upper bound to normalization time (modulo a polynomial overhead, independently on the reduction strategy) and a lower bound to the number of steps to normal form (for certain reduction strategies). Weights are then exploited in proving strong soundness theorems for various subsystems of linear logic, namely elementary linear logic, soft linear logic and light linear logic.Comment: 22 page

An axiomatic approach for solving geometric problems symbolically

technical reportThis paper describes a new approach for solving geometric constraint problems and problems in geometry theorem proving. We developed a rewrite-rule mechanism operating on geometric predicates. Termination and completeness of the problem solving algorithm can be obtained through well foundedness and confluence of the set of rewrite rules. To guarantee these properties we adapted the Knuth-Bendix completion algorithm to the specific requirements of the geometric problem. A symbolic, geometric solution has the advantage over the usual algebraic approach that it speaks the language of geometry. Therefore, it has the potential to be used in many practical applications in interactive Computer Aided Design

A Science of Reasoning

This paper addresses the question of how we can understand reasoning in general and mathematical proofs in particular. It argues the need for a high-level understanding of proofs to complement the low-level understanding provided by Logic. It proposes a role for computation in providing this high-level understanding, namely by the association of proof plans with proofs. Proof plans are defined and examples are given for two families of proofs. Criteria are given for assessing the association of a proof plan with a proof. 1 Motivation: the understanding of mathematical proofs The understanding of reasoning has interested researchers since, at least, Aristotle. Logic has been proposed by Aristotle, Boole, Frege and others as a way of formalising arguments and understanding their structure. There have also been psychological studies of how people and animals actually do reason. The work on Logic has been especially influential in the automation of reasoning. For instance, resolution..

Globular: an online proof assistant for higher-dimensional rewriting

This article introduces Globular, an online proof assistant for the formalization and verification of proofs in higher-dimensional category theory. The tool produces graphical visualizations of higher-dimensional proofs, assists in their construction with a point-and- click interface, and performs type checking to prevent incorrect rewrites. Hosted on the web, it has a low barrier to use, and allows hyperlinking of formalized proofs directly from research papers. It allows the formalization of proofs from logic, topology and algebra which are not formalizable by other methods, and we give several examples

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