Tactics for Reasoning Modulo AC in Coq

  • Thomas Braibant
  • Damien Pous
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7086)

Abstract

We present a set of tools for rewriting modulo associativity and commutativity (AC) in Coq, solving a long-standing practical problem. We use two building blocks: first, an extensible reflexive decision procedure for equality modulo AC; second, an OCaml plug-in for pattern matching modulo AC. We handle associative only operations, neutral elements, uninterpreted function symbols, and user-defined equivalence relations. By relying on type-classes for the reification phase, we can infer these properties automatically, so that end-users do not need to specify which operation is A or AC, or which constant is a neutral element.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, S.F., Constable, R.L., Howe, D.J., Aitken, W.E.: The Semantics of Reflected Proof. In: Proc. LICS, pp. 95–105. IEEE Computer Society (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarado, C., Nguyen, Q.-H.: ELAN for Equational Reasoning in Coq. In: Proc. LFM 2000. INRIA (2000) ISBN 2-7261-1166-1Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armand, M., Faure, G., Grégoire, B., Keller, C., Théry, L., Werner, B.: A Modular Integration of SAT/SMT Solvers to Coq Through Proof Witnesses. In: Jouannaud, J.-P., Shao, Z. (eds.) CPP 2011. LNCS, vol. 7086, pp. 135–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barthe, G., Ruys, M., Barendregt, H.: A Two-Level Approach Towards Lean Proof-Checking. In: Berardi, S., Coppo, M. (eds.) TYPES 1995. LNCS, vol. 1158, pp. 16–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besson, F.: Fast Reflexive Arithmetic Tactics the Linear Case and Beyond. In: Altenkirch, T., McBride, C. (eds.) TYPES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4502, pp. 48–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boudet, A., Jouannaud, J.-P., Schmidt-Schauß, M.: Unification in Boolean Rings and Abelian groups. J. Symb. Comput. 8(5), 449–477 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boutin, S.: Using Reflection to Build Efficient and Certified Decision Procedures. In: Ito, T., Abadi, M. (eds.) TACS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1281, pp. 515–529. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyer, R.S., Moore, J.S. (eds.): The Correctness Problem in Computer Science. Academic Press (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braibant, T., Pous, D.: Tactics for working modulo AC in Coq. Coq library (June 2010), http://sardes.inrialpes.fr/~braibant/aac_tactics/
  10. 10.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: The Maude 2.0 system. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) RTA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2706, pp. 76–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Contejean, E.: A Certified AC Matching Algorithm. In: van Oostrom, V. (ed.) RTA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 70–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eker, S.: Single Elementary Associative-Commutative Matching. J. Autom. Reasoning 28(1), 35–51 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonthier, G., Ziliani, B., Nanevski, A., Dreyer, D.: How to make ad hoc proof automation less ad hoc. In: Proc. ICFP, ACM (to appear, 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grégoire, B., Mahboubi, A.: Proving Equalities in a Commutative Ring Done Right in Coq. In: Hurd, J., Melham, T. (eds.) TPHOLs 2005. LNCS, vol. 3603, pp. 98–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hullot, J.M.: Associative Commutative pattern matching. In: Proc. IJCAI, pp. 406–412. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen, Q.H., Kirchner, C., Kirchner, H.: External Rewriting for Skeptical Proof Assistants. J. Autom. Reasoning 29(3-4), 309–336 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nipkow, T.: Equational reasoning in Isabelle. Sci. Comp. Prg. 12(2), 123–149 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nipkow, T.: Proof transformations for equational theories. In: Proc. LICS, pp. 278–288. IEEE Computer Society (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peterson, G., Stickel, M.: Complete sets of reductions for some equational theories. J. ACM 28(2), 233–264 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plotkin, G.: Building in equational theories. Machine Intelligence 7 (1972)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slind, K.: AC Unification in HOL90. In: Joyce, J.J., Seger, C.-J.H. (eds.) HUG 1993. LNCS, vol. 780, pp. 436–449. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sozeau, M., Oury, N.: First-Class Type Classes. In: Mohamed, O.A., Muñoz, C., Tahar, S. (eds.) TPHOLs 2008. LNCS, vol. 5170, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Braibant
    • 1
  • Damien Pous
    • 1
  1. 1.LIG, UMR 5217, CNRSINRIAGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations