Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers

Jasmin Christian Blanchette; Sascha Böhme; Lawrence C. Paulson

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22438-6_11

International Conference on Automated Deduction

CADE 2011: Automated Deduction – CADE-23 pp 116-130

Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Jasmin Christian Blanchette
Sascha Böhme
Lawrence C. Paulson

Conference paper

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-22438-6_11

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6803)

Cite this paper as:: Blanchette J.C., Böhme S., Paulson L.C. (2011) Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers. In: Bjørner N., Sofronie-Stokkermans V. (eds) Automated Deduction – CADE-23. CADE 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6803. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Abstract

Sledgehammer is a component of Isabelle/HOL that employs first-order automatic theorem provers (ATPs) to discharge goals arising in interactive proofs. It heuristically selects relevant facts and, if an ATP is successful, produces a snippet that replays the proof in Isabelle. We extended Sledgehammer to invoke satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solvers as well, exploiting its relevance filter and parallel architecture. Isabelle users are now pleasantly surprised by SMT proofs for problems beyond the ATPs’ reach. Remarkably, the best SMT solver performs better than the best ATP on most of our benchmarks.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

1.
Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Menzel, W., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Schmitt, P.H.: Integrating automated and interactive theorem proving. In: Bibel, W., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.) Automated Deduction—A Basis for Applications. Systems and Implementation Techniques, vol. II, pp. 97–116. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
Andrews, P.B.: An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof, 2nd edn. Applied Logic, vol. 27. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
3.
Backes, J., Brown, C.E.: Analytic tableaux for higher-order logic with choice. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6173, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.
Barrett, C., Tinelli, C.: CVC3. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 298–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Barsotti, D., Nieto, L.P., Tiu, A.: Verification of clock synchronization algorithms: Experiments on a combination of deductive tools. Formal Asp. Comput. 19(3), 321–341 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
6.
Benzmüller, C., Paulson, L.C., Theiss, F., Fietzke, A.: LEO-II—a cooperative automatic theorem prover for higher-order logic. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 162–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Bezem, M., Hendriks, D., de Nivelle, H.: Automatic proof construction in type theory using resolution. J. Auto. Reas. 29(3-4), 253–275 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
8.
Böhme, S., Moskal, M., Schulte, W., Wolff, B.: HOL-Boogie—an interactive prover-backend for the Verifying C Compiler. J. Auto. Reas. 44(1-2), 111–144 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
9.
Böhme, S., Nipkow, T.: Sledgehammer: Judgement Day. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6173, pp. 107–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
Böhme, S., Weber, T.: Fast LCF-style proof reconstruction for Z3. In: Kaufmann, M., Paulson, L.C. (eds.) ITP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6172, pp. 179–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.
Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z.: Property-directed incremental invariant generation. Formal Asp. Comput. 20, 379–405 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
12.
Claessen, K.: Equinox, a new theorem prover for full first-order logic with equality. Presentation at Dagstuhl Seminar on Deduction and Applications (2005)
13.
Cohen, E., Dahlweid, M., Hillebrand, M.A., Leinenbach, D., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: VCC: A practical system for verifying concurrent C. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.
Couchot, J.-F., Lescuyer, S.: Handling polymorphism in automated deduction. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 263–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.
de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
Dutertre, B., de Moura, L.: The Yices SMT solver (2006), http://yices.csl.sri.com/tool-paper.pdf
17.
Erkök, L., Matthews, J.: Using Yices as an automated solver in Isabelle/HOL. In: Rushby, J., Shankar, N. (eds.) Automated Formal Methods, pp. 3–13 (2008)
18.
Fontaine, P., Marion, J.-Y., Merz, S., Nieto, L.P., Tiu, A.: Expressiveness + automation + soundness: Towards combining SMT solvers and interactive proof assistants. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (ed.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
Hoder, K., Voronkov, A.: Sine qua non for large theory reasoning. In: These proceedings (2011)
20.
Hurd, J.: Integrating Gandalf and HOL. In: Bertot, Y., Dowek, G., Hirschowitz, A., Paulin, C., Théry, L. (eds.) TPHOLs 1999. LNCS, vol. 1690, pp. 311–321. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.
Hurd, J.: First-order proof tactics in higher-order logic theorem provers. In: Archer, M., Di Vito, B., Muñoz, C. (eds.) Design and Application of Strategies/Tactics in Higher Order Logics, number CP-2003-212448 in NASA Technical Reports, pp. 56–68 (2003)
22.
Keller, C.: Cooperation between SAT, SMT provers and Coq. Presentation at the Synthesis. Verification and Analysis of Rich Models workshop (2011)
23.
Klein, G., Nipkow, T., Paulson, L. (eds.): The Archive of Formal Proofs, http://afp.sf.net/
24.
Korovin, K.: Instantiation-based automated reasoning: From theory to practice. In: Schmidt, R.A. (ed.) CADE-22. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5663, pp. 163–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.
Leino, K.R.M., Rümmer, P.: A polymorphic intermediate verification language: Design and logical encoding. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 312–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.
McLaughlin, S., Barrett, C., Ge, Y.: Cooperating theorem provers: A case study combining HOL-Light and CVC Lite. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 144(2), 43–51 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
27.
Meng, J., Paulson, L.C.: Translating higher-order clauses to first-order clauses. J. Auto. Reas. 40(1), 35–60 (2008)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
28.
Meng, J., Paulson, L.C.: Lightweight relevance filtering for machine-generated resolution problems. J. Applied Logic 7(1), 41–57 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
29.
Moskal, M.: Programming with triggers. In: Dutertre, B., Strichman, O. (eds.) Satisfiability Modulo Theories (2009)
30.
Nipkow, T.: Re: [isabelle] A beginner’s questionu [sic], (November 26, 2010), https://lists.cam.ac.uk/pipermail/cl-isabelle-users/2010-November/msg00097.html
31.
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.T. (eds.): Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
32.
Nonnengart, A., Weidenbach, C.: Computing small clause normal forms. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, pp. 335–367. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.
Paulson, L.C., Blanchette, J.C.: Three years of experience with Sledgehammer, a practical link between automatic and interactive theorem provers. In: Sutcliffe, G., Ternovska, E., Schulz, S. (eds.) International Workshop on the Implementation of Logics (2010)
34.
Paulson, L.C., Susanto, K.W.: Source-level proof reconstruction for interactive theorem proving. In: Schneider, K., Brandt, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 2007. LNCS, vol. 4732, pp. 232–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.
Ranise, S., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB standard: Version 1.2 (2006), http://goedel.cs.uiowa.edu/smtlib/papers/format-v1.2-r06.08.30.pdf
36.
Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: The design and implementation of Vampire. AI Comm. 15(2-3), 91–110 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
37.
Rushby, J.M.: Tutorial: Automated formal methods with PVS, SAL, and Yices. In: Hung, D.V., Pandya, P. (eds.) Software Engineering and Formal Methods, p. 262. IEEE, New York (2006)Google Scholar
38.
Schulz, S.: System description: E 0.81. In: Basin, D., Rusinowitch, M. (eds.) IJCAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3097, pp. 223–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.
Siekmann, J., Benzmüller, C., Fiedler, A., Meier, A., Normann, I., Pollet, M.: Proof development with Ωmega: The irrationality of \(\sqrt2\). In: Kamareddine, F. (ed.) Thirty Five Years of Automating Mathematics. Applied Logic, vol. 28, pp. 271–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.
Sutcliffe, G.: System description: SystemOnTPTP. In: McAllester, D. (ed.) CADE 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1831, pp. 406–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.
Sutcliffe, G., Chang, C., Ding, L., McGuinness, D., da Silva, P.P.: Different proofs are good proofs. In: McGuinness, D., Stump, A., Sutcliffe, G., Tinelli, C. (eds.) Workshop on Evaluation Methods for Solvers, and Quality Metrics for Solutions, pp. 1–10 (2010)
42.
Urban, J.: MPTP 0.2: Design, implementation, and initial experiments. J. Auto. Reas. 37(1-2), 21–43 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
43.
Wampler-Doty, M.: A complete proof of the Robbins conjecture. In: Klein, G., Nipkow, T., Paulson, L. (eds.) The Archive of Formal Proofs (2010), http://afp.sf.net/entries/Robbins-Conjecture.shtml
44.
Weidenbach, C.: Combining superposition, sorts and splitting. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, pp. 1965–2013. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.
Wenzel, M.: Type classes and overloading in higher-order logic. In: Gunter, E.L., Felty, A.P. (eds.) TPHOLs 1997. LNCS, vol. 1275, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46.
Wenzel, M.: Parallel proof checking in Isabelle/Isar. In: Dos Reis, G., Théry, L. (eds.) Programming Languages for Mechanized Mathematics Systems, ACM Digital Library (2009)

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Jasmin Christian Blanchette
- 1
Sascha Böhme
- 1
Lawrence C. Paulson
- 2

1.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGermany
2.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeU.K.

Personalised recommendations

Actions

Buy eBook

USD 79.99

Instant download
Readable on all devices
Own it forever
Local sales tax included if applicable

Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers

Abstract

Preview

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies