Decidable structures between Church-style and Curry-style

It is well-known that the type-checking and type-inference problems are undecidable for second order lambda-calculus in Curry-style, although those for Church-style are decidable. What causes the differences in decidability and undecidability on the problems? We examine crucial conditions on terms for the (un)decidability property from the viewpoint of partially typed terms, and what kinds of type annotations are essential for (un)decidability of type-related problems. It is revealed that there exists an intermediate structure of second order lambda-terms, called a style of hole-application, between Church-style and Curry-style, such that the type-related problems are decidable under the structure. We also extend this idea to the omega-order polymorphic calculus F-omega, and show that the type-checking and type-inference problems then become undecidable

Superposition as a logical glue

The typical mathematical language systematically exploits notational and logical abuses whose resolution requires not just the knowledge of domain specific notation and conventions, but not trivial skills in the given mathematical discipline. A large part of this background knowledge is expressed in form of equalities and isomorphisms, allowing mathematicians to freely move between different incarnations of the same entity without even mentioning the transformation. Providing ITP-systems with similar capabilities seems to be a major way to improve their intelligence, and to ease the communication between the user and the machine. The present paper discusses our experience of integration of a superposition calculus within the Matita interactive prover, providing in particular a very flexible, "smart" application tactic, and a simple, innovative approach to automation.Comment: In Proceedings TYPES 2009, arXiv:1103.311

Meta-F*: Proof Automation with SMT, Tactics, and Metaprograms

We introduce Meta-F*, a tactics and metaprogramming framework for the F* program verifier. The main novelty of Meta-F* is allowing the use of tactics and metaprogramming to discharge assertions not solvable by SMT, or to just simplify them into well-behaved SMT fragments. Plus, Meta-F* can be used to generate verified code automatically. Meta-F* is implemented as an F* effect, which, given the powerful effect system of F*, heavily increases code reuse and even enables the lightweight verification of metaprograms. Metaprograms can be either interpreted, or compiled to efficient native code that can be dynamically loaded into the F* type-checker and can interoperate with interpreted code. Evaluation on realistic case studies shows that Meta-F* provides substantial gains in proof development, efficiency, and robustness.Comment: Full version of ESOP'19 pape

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

Perspectives for proof unwinding by programming languages techniques

In this chapter, we propose some future directions of work, potentially beneficial to Mathematics and its foundations, based on the recent import of methodology from the theory of programming languages into proof theory. This scientific essay, written for the audience of proof theorists as well as the working mathematician, is not a survey of the field, but rather a personal view of the author who hopes that it may inspire future and fellow researchers

The Higher-Order Prover Leo-II.

Leo-II is an automated theorem prover for classical higher-order logic. The prover has pioneered cooperative higher-order-first-order proof automation, it has influenced the development of the TPTP THF infrastructure for higher-order logic, and it has been applied in a wide array of problems. Leo-II may also be called in proof assistants as an external aid tool to save user effort. For this it is crucial that Leo-II returns proof information in a standardised syntax, so that these proofs can eventually be transformed and verified within proof assistants. Recent progress in this direction is reported for the Isabelle/HOL system.The Leo-II project has been supported by the following grants: EPSRC grant EP/D070511/1 and DFG grants BE/2501 6-1, 8-1 and 9-1.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10817-015-9348-y