A Vernacular for Coherent Logic

We propose a simple, yet expressive proof representation from which proofs for different proof assistants can easily be generated. The representation uses only a few inference rules and is based on a frag- ment of first-order logic called coherent logic. Coherent logic has been recognized by a number of researchers as a suitable logic for many ev- eryday mathematical developments. The proposed proof representation is accompanied by a corresponding XML format and by a suite of XSL transformations for generating formal proofs for Isabelle/Isar and Coq, as well as proofs expressed in a natural language form (formatted in LATEX or in HTML). Also, our automated theorem prover for coherent logic exports proofs in the proposed XML format. All tools are publicly available, along with a set of sample theorems.Comment: CICM 2014 - Conferences on Intelligent Computer Mathematics (2014

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

Resolution over Linear Equations and Multilinear Proofs

We develop and study the complexity of propositional proof systems of varying strength extending resolution by allowing it to operate with disjunctions of linear equations instead of clauses. We demonstrate polynomial-size refutations for hard tautologies like the pigeonhole principle, Tseitin graph tautologies and the clique-coloring tautologies in these proof systems. Using the (monotone) interpolation by a communication game technique we establish an exponential-size lower bound on refutations in a certain, considerably strong, fragment of resolution over linear equations, as well as a general polynomial upper bound on (non-monotone) interpolants in this fragment. We then apply these results to extend and improve previous results on multilinear proofs (over fields of characteristic 0), as studied in [RazTzameret06]. Specifically, we show the following: 1. Proofs operating with depth-3 multilinear formulas polynomially simulate a certain, considerably strong, fragment of resolution over linear equations. 2. Proofs operating with depth-3 multilinear formulas admit polynomial-size refutations of the pigeonhole principle and Tseitin graph tautologies. The former improve over a previous result that established small multilinear proofs only for the \emph{functional} pigeonhole principle. The latter are different than previous proofs, and apply to multilinear proofs of Tseitin mod p graph tautologies over any field of characteristic 0. We conclude by connecting resolution over linear equations with extensions of the cutting planes proof system.Comment: 44 page

Trade-Offs Between Size and Degree in Polynomial Calculus

Building on [Clegg et al. \u2796], [Impagliazzo et al. \u2799] established that if an unsatisfiable k-CNF formula over n variables has a refutation of size S in the polynomial calculus resolution proof system, then this formula also has a refutation of degree k + O(?(n log S)). The proof of this works by converting a small-size refutation into a small-degree one, but at the expense of increasing the proof size exponentially. This raises the question of whether it is possible to achieve both small size and small degree in the same refutation, or whether the exponential blow-up is inherent. Using and extending ideas from [Thapen \u2716], who studied the analogous question for the resolution proof system, we prove that a strong size-degree trade-off is necessary