Data Definitions in the ACL2 Sedan

We present a data definition framework that enables the convenient specification of data types in ACL2s, the ACL2 Sedan. Our primary motivation for developing the data definition framework was pedagogical. We were teaching undergraduate students how to reason about programs using ACL2s and wanted to provide them with an effective method for defining, testing, and reasoning about data types in the context of an untyped theorem prover. Our framework is now routinely used not only for pedagogical purposes, but also by advanced users. Our framework concisely supports common data definition patterns, e.g. list types, map types, and record types. It also provides support for polymorphic functions. A distinguishing feature of our approach is that we maintain both a predicative and an enumerative characterization of data definitions. In this paper we present our data definition framework via a sequence of examples. We give a complete characterization in terms of tau rules of the inclusion/exclusion relations a data definition induces, under suitable restrictions. The data definition framework is a key component of counterexample generation support in ACL2s, but can be independently used in ACL2, and is available as a community book.Comment: In Proceedings ACL2 2014, arXiv:1406.123

Integrating Testing and Interactive Theorem Proving

Using an interactive theorem prover to reason about programs involves a sequence of interactions where the user challenges the theorem prover with conjectures. Invariably, many of the conjectures posed are in fact false, and users often spend considerable effort examining the theorem prover's output before realizing this. We present a synergistic integration of testing with theorem proving, implemented in the ACL2 Sedan (ACL2s), for automatically generating concrete counterexamples. Our method uses the full power of the theorem prover and associated libraries to simplify conjectures; this simplification can transform conjectures for which finding counterexamples is hard into conjectures where finding counterexamples is trivial. In fact, our approach even leads to better theorem proving, e.g. if testing shows that a generalization step leads to a false conjecture, we force the theorem prover to backtrack, allowing it to pursue more fruitful options that may yield a proof. The focus of the paper is on the engineering of a synergistic integration of testing with interactive theorem proving; this includes extending ACL2 with new functionality that we expect to be of general interest. We also discuss our experience in using ACL2s to teach freshman students how to reason about their programs.Comment: In Proceedings ACL2 2011, arXiv:1110.447