Automated verification of refinement laws

Demonic refinement algebras are variants of Kleene algebras. Introduced by von Wright as a light-weight variant of the refinement calculus, their intended semantics are positively disjunctive predicate transformers, and their calculus is entirely within first-order equational logic. So, for the first time, off-the-shelf automated theorem proving (ATP) becomes available for refinement proofs. We used ATP to verify a toolkit of basic refinement laws. Based on this toolkit, we then verified two classical complex refinement laws for action systems by ATP: a data refinement law and Back's atomicity refinement law. We also present a refinement law for infinite loops that has been discovered through automated analysis. Our proof experiments not only demonstrate that refinement can effectively be automated, they also compare eleven different ATP systems and suggest that program verification with variants of Kleene algebras yields interesting theorem proving benchmarks. Finally, we apply hypothesis learning techniques that seem indispensable for automating more complex proofs

The use of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics

This paper discusses the usse of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics. It was presented at the Workshop on Computer-Supported Mathematical Theory Development held at IJCAR in 2004. The aim of this project is to evaluate the applicability of data-mining techniques to the automatic formation of tactics from large corpuses of proofs. We data-mine information from large proof corpuses to find commonly occurring patterns. These patterns are then evolved into tactics using genetic programming techniques

An Open Challenge Problem Repository for Systems Supporting Binders

A variety of logical frameworks support the use of higher-order abstract syntax in representing formal systems; however, each system has its own set of benchmarks. Even worse, general proof assistants that provide special libraries for dealing with binders offer a very limited evaluation of such libraries, and the examples given often do not exercise and stress-test key aspects that arise in the presence of binders. In this paper we design an open repository ORBI (Open challenge problem Repository for systems supporting reasoning with BInders). We believe the field of reasoning about languages with binders has matured, and a common set of benchmarks provides an important basis for evaluation and qualitative comparison of different systems and libraries that support binders, and it will help to advance the field.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0759

Graph Based Reduction of Program Verification Conditions

Increasing the automaticity of proofs in deductive verification of C programs is a challenging task. When applied to industrial C programs known heuristics to generate simpler verification conditions are not efficient enough. This is mainly due to their size and a high number of irrelevant hypotheses. This work presents a strategy to reduce program verification conditions by selecting their relevant hypotheses. The relevance of a hypothesis is determined by the combination of a syntactic analysis and two graph traversals. The first graph is labeled by constants and the second one by the predicates in the axioms. The approach is applied on a benchmark arising in industrial program verification

MACE 2.0 Reference Manual and Guide

MACE is a program that searches for finite models of first-order statements. The statement to be modeled is first translated to clauses, then to relational clauses; finally for the given domain size, the ground instances are constructed. A Davis-Putnam-Loveland-Logeman procedure decides the propositional problem, and any models found are translated to first-order models. MACE is a useful complement to the theorem prover Otter, with Otter searching for proofs and MACE looking for countermodels.Comment: 10 page

User-friendly Support for Common Concepts in a Lightweight Verifier

Machine verification of formal arguments can only increase our confidence in the correctness of those arguments, but the costs of employing machine verification still outweigh the benefits for some common kinds of formal reasoning activities. As a result, usability is becoming increasingly important in the design of formal verification tools. We describe the "aartifact" lightweight verification system, designed for processing formal arguments involving basic, ubiquitous mathematical concepts. The system is a prototype for investigating potential techniques for improving the usability of formal verification systems. It leverages techniques drawn both from existing work and from our own efforts. In addition to a parser for a familiar concrete syntax and a mechanism for automated syntax lookup, the system integrates (1) a basic logical inference algorithm, (2) a database of propositions governing common mathematical concepts, and (3) a data structure that computes congruence closures of expressions involving relations found in this database. Together, these components allow the system to better accommodate the expectations of users interested in verifying formal arguments involving algebraic and logical manipulations of numbers, sets, vectors, and related operators and predicates. We demonstrate the reasonable performance of this system on typical formal arguments and briefly discuss how the system's design contributed to its usability in two case studies