A framework for proof certificates in finite state exploration

Model checkers use automated state exploration in order to prove various properties such as reachability, non-reachability, and bisimulation over state transition systems. While model checkers have proved valuable for locating errors in computer models and specifications, they can also be used to prove properties that might be consumed by other computational logic systems, such as theorem provers. In such a situation, a prover must be able to trust that the model checker is correct. Instead of attempting to prove the correctness of a model checker, we ask that it outputs its "proof evidence" as a formally defined document--a proof certificate--and that this document is checked by a trusted proof checker. We describe a framework for defining and checking proof certificates for a range of model checking problems. The core of this framework is a (focused) proof system that is augmented with premises that involve "clerk and expert" predicates. This framework is designed so that soundness can be guaranteed independently of any concerns for the correctness of the clerk and expert specifications. To illustrate the flexibility of this framework, we define and formally check proof certificates for reachability and non-reachability in graphs, as well as bisimulation and non-bisimulation for labeled transition systems. Finally, we describe briefly a reference checker that we have implemented for this framework.Comment: In Proceedings PxTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0837

Computer-Assisted Program Reasoning Based on a Relational Semantics of Programs

We present an approach to program reasoning which inserts between a program and its verification conditions an additional layer, the denotation of the program expressed in a declarative form. The program is first translated into its denotation from which subsequently the verification conditions are generated. However, even before (and independently of) any verification attempt, one may investigate the denotation itself to get insight into the "semantic essence" of the program, in particular to see whether the denotation indeed gives reason to believe that the program has the expected behavior. Errors in the program and in the meta-information may thus be detected and fixed prior to actually performing the formal verification. More concretely, following the relational approach to program semantics, we model the effect of a program as a binary relation on program states. A formal calculus is devised to derive from a program a logic formula that describes this relation and is subject for inspection and manipulation. We have implemented this idea in a comprehensive form in the RISC ProgramExplorer, a new program reasoning environment for educational purposes which encompasses the previously developed RISC ProofNavigator as an interactive proving assistant.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

An Introduction to Mechanized Reasoning

Mechanized reasoning uses computers to verify proofs and to help discover new theorems. Computer scientists have applied mechanized reasoning to economic problems but -- to date -- this work has not yet been properly presented in economics journals. We introduce mechanized reasoning to economists in three ways. First, we introduce mechanized reasoning in general, describing both the techniques and their successful applications. Second, we explain how mechanized reasoning has been applied to economic problems, concentrating on the two domains that have attracted the most attention: social choice theory and auction theory. Finally, we present a detailed example of mechanized reasoning in practice by means of a proof of Vickrey's familiar theorem on second-price auctions

Using Program Synthesis for Program Analysis

In this paper, we identify a fragment of second-order logic with restricted quantification that is expressive enough to capture numerous static analysis problems (e.g. safety proving, bug finding, termination and non-termination proving, superoptimisation). We call this fragment the {\it synthesis fragment}. Satisfiability of a formula in the synthesis fragment is decidable over finite domains; specifically the decision problem is NEXPTIME-complete. If a formula in this fragment is satisfiable, a solution consists of a satisfying assignment from the second order variables to \emph{functions over finite domains}. To concretely find these solutions, we synthesise \emph{programs} that compute the functions. Our program synthesis algorithm is complete for finite state programs, i.e. every \emph{function} over finite domains is computed by some \emph{program} that we can synthesise. We can therefore use our synthesiser as a decision procedure for the synthesis fragment of second-order logic, which in turn allows us to use it as a powerful backend for many program analysis tasks. To show the tractability of our approach, we evaluate the program synthesiser on several static analysis problems.Comment: 19 pages, to appear in LPAR 2015. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1409.492

Learning-Assisted Automated Reasoning with Flyspeck

The considerable mathematical knowledge encoded by the Flyspeck project is combined with external automated theorem provers (ATPs) and machine-learning premise selection methods trained on the proofs, producing an AI system capable of answering a wide range of mathematical queries automatically. The performance of this architecture is evaluated in a bootstrapping scenario emulating the development of Flyspeck from axioms to the last theorem, each time using only the previous theorems and proofs. It is shown that 39% of the 14185 theorems could be proved in a push-button mode (without any high-level advice and user interaction) in 30 seconds of real time on a fourteen-CPU workstation. The necessary work involves: (i) an implementation of sound translations of the HOL Light logic to ATP formalisms: untyped first-order, polymorphic typed first-order, and typed higher-order, (ii) export of the dependency information from HOL Light and ATP proofs for the machine learners, and (iii) choice of suitable representations and methods for learning from previous proofs, and their integration as advisors with HOL Light. This work is described and discussed here, and an initial analysis of the body of proofs that were found fully automatically is provided