SEPIA: Search for Proofs Using Inferred Automata

This paper describes SEPIA, a tool for automated proof generation in Coq. SEPIA combines model inference with interactive theorem proving. Existing proof corpora are modelled using state-based models inferred from tactic sequences. These can then be traversed automatically to identify proofs. The SEPIA system is described and its performance evaluated on three Coq datasets. Our results show that SEPIA provides a useful complement to existing automated tactics in Coq.Comment: To appear at 25th International Conference on Automated Deductio

Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Proving

This paper presents the first use of graph neural networks (GNNs) for higher-order proof search and demonstrates that GNNs can improve upon state-of-the-art results in this domain. Interactive, higher-order theorem provers allow for the formalization of most mathematical theories and have been shown to pose a significant challenge for deep learning. Higher-order logic is highly expressive and, even though it is well-structured with a clearly defined grammar and semantics, there still remains no well-established method to convert formulas into graph-based representations. In this paper, we consider several graphical representations of higher-order logic and evaluate them against the HOList benchmark for higher-order theorem proving

Hipster: Integrating Theory Exploration in a Proof Assistant

This paper describes Hipster, a system integrating theory exploration with the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL. Theory exploration is a technique for automatically discovering new interesting lemmas in a given theory development. Hipster can be used in two main modes. The first is exploratory mode, used for automatically generating basic lemmas about a given set of datatypes and functions in a new theory development. The second is proof mode, used in a particular proof attempt, trying to discover the missing lemmas which would allow the current goal to be proved. Hipster's proof mode complements and boosts existing proof automation techniques that rely on automatically selecting existing lemmas, by inventing new lemmas that need induction to be proved. We show example uses of both modes

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

Goal Translation for a Hammer for Coq (Extended Abstract)

Hammers are tools that provide general purpose automation for formal proof assistants. Despite the gaining popularity of the more advanced versions of type theory, there are no hammers for such systems. We present an extension of the various hammer components to type theory: (i) a translation of a significant part of the Coq logic into the format of automated proof systems; (ii) a proof reconstruction mechanism based on a Ben-Yelles-type algorithm combined with limited rewriting, congruence closure and a first-order generalization of the left rules of Dyckhoff's system LJT.Comment: In Proceedings HaTT 2016, arXiv:1606.0542

A Comparative Study of Coq and HOL

This paper illustrates the differences between the style of theory mechanisation of Coq and of HOL. This comparative study is based on the mechanisation of fragments of the theory of computation in these systems. Examples from these implementations are given to support some of the arguments discussed in this paper. The mechanisms for specifying definitions and for theorem proving are discussed separately, building in parallel two pictures of the different approaches of mechanisation given by these systems