PRocH: Proof Reconstruction for HOL Light

  • Cezary Kaliszyk
  • Josef Urban
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7898)

Abstract

PRocH is a proof reconstruction tool that imports in HOL Light proofs produced by ATPs on the recently developed translation of HOL Light and Flyspeck problems to ATP formats. PRocH combines several reconstruction methods in parallel, but the core improvement over previous methods is obtained by re-playing in the HOL logic the detailed inference steps recorded in the ATP (TPTP) proofs, using several internal HOL Light inference methods. These methods range from fast variable matching and more involved rewriting, to full first-order theorem proving using the MESON tactic. The system is described and its performance is evaluated here on a large set of Flyspeck problems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Böhme, S., Nipkow, T.: Sledgehammer: Judgement day. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6173, pp. 107–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J.: Learning-assisted automated reasoning with Flyspeck. CoRR, abs/1211.7012 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCune, W., Matlin, O.S.: Ivy: A Preprocessor and Proof Checker for First-Order Logic. In: Computer-Aided Reasoning: ACL2 Case Studies. Advances in Formal Methods, vol. 4, pp. 265–282. Kluwer (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Pak, K.: Methods of lemma extraction in natural deduction proofs. Journal of Automated Reasoning 50, 217–228 (2013)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sutcliffe, G.: Semantic derivation verification: Techniques and implementation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 15(6), 1053–1070 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutcliffe, G., Schulz, S., Claessen, K., Van Gelder, A.: Using the TPTP language for writing derivations and finite interpretations. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urban, J.: BliStr: The Blind Strategymaker. CoRR, abs/1301.2683 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vyskočil, J., Stanovský, D., Urban, J.: Automated Proof Compression by Invention of New Definitions. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6355, pp. 447–462. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiedijk, F.: A synthesis of the procedural and declarative styles of interactive theorem proving. Logical Methods in Computer Science 8(1) (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cezary Kaliszyk
    • 1
  • Josef Urban
    • 2
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations