Advertisement

Formalizing Size-Optimal Sorting Networks: Extracting a Certified Proof Checker

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
  • Peter Schneider-Kamp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9236)

Abstract

Since the proof of the four color theorem in 1976, computer-generated proofs have become a reality in mathematics and computer science. During the last decade, we have seen formal proofs using verified proof assistants being used to verify the validity of such proofs.

In this paper, we describe a formalized theory of size-optimal sorting networks. From this formalization we extract a certified checker that successfully verifies computer-generated proofs of optimality on up to 8 inputs. The checker relies on an untrusted oracle to shortcut the search for witnesses on more than 1.6 million NP-complete subproblems.

Keywords

Formal Proof Mathematical Proof Search Step Naive Approach Sorting Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Femke van Raamsdonk, whose initial skepticism about our informal proof inspired this work, and Michael Codish for his support and his enthusiasm about sorting networks. The authors were supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences. Computational resources were generously provided by the Danish Center for Scientific Computing.

References

  1. 1.
    Appel, K., Haken, W.: Every planar map is four colorable. Part I: discharging. Ill. J. Math. 21, 429–490 (1977)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appel, K., Haken, W., Koch, J.: Every planar map is four colorable. Part II: reducibility. Ill. J. Math. 21, 491–567 (1977)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barendregt, H., Wiedijk, F.: The challenge of computer mathematics. Trans. A Roy. Soc. 363(1835), 2351–2375 (2005)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blazy, S., Paulin-Mohring, C., Pichardie, D. (eds.): ITP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7998. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claret, G., González-Huesca, L.C., Régis-Gianas, Y., Ziliani, B.: Lightweight proof by reflection using a posteriori simulation of effectful computation. In Blazy et al. [4], pp. 67–83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Codish, M., Cruz-Filipe, L., Frank, M., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Twenty-five comparators is optimal when sorting nine inputs (and twenty-nine for ten). In: ICTAI 2014, pp. 186–193. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Contejean, E., Courtieu, P., Forest, J., Pons, O., Urbain, X.: Automated certified proofs with CiME3. In: Schmidt-Schauß, M., (ed.) RTA 2011. LIPIcs, vol. 10, pp. 21–30. Schloss Dagstuhl (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Optimizing a certified proof checker for a large-scale computer-generated proof. In: Kerber, M., Carette, J., Kaliszyk, C., Rabe, F., Sorge, V. (eds.) CICM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9150, pp. 55–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floyd, R.W., Knuth, D.E.: The Bose-Nelson sorting problem. In: Srivastava, J.N. (ed.) A Survey of Combinatorial Theory, pp. 163–172. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1973)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fouilhe, A., Monniaux, D., Périn, M.: Efficient generation of correctness certificates for the abstract domain of polyhedra. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) Static Analysis. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 345–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonthier, G.: Formal proof - the four-color theorem. Not. AMS 55(11), 1382–1393 (2008)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knuth, D.E.: The Art of Computer Programming. Sorting and Searching, vol. 3. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1973) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konev, B., Lisitsa, A.: A SAT attack on the Erdős discrepancy conjecture. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 219–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leroy, X.: Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Commun. ACM 52(7), 107–115 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parberry, I.: A computer-assisted optimal depth lower bound for nine-input sorting networks. Math. Syst. Theor. 24(2), 101–116 (1991)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sternagel, C., Thiemann, R.: The certification problem format. In: Benzmüller, C., Paleo, B.W. (eds.) UITP 2014. EPTCS, vol. 167, pp. 61–72 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thiemann, R.: Formalizing bounded increase. In: Blazy et al. [4], pp. 245–260Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Voorhis, D.C.: Toward a lower bound for sorting networks. In: Miller, R.E., Thatcher, J.W. (eds.) Complexity of Computer Computations. The IBM Research Symposia Series, pp. 119–129. Plenum Press, New York (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations