A general framework for mechanizing induction using test set

  • Adel Bouhoula
Machine Learning I
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1114)


We present in this paper a test set induction procedure which is refutationally complete for conditional specifications (not restricted to Boolean specifications), in that it refutes any conjecture which is not an inductive theorem. Previously, we could only compute a test set for a conditional specification if the constructors were free. Here, we give a new definition of test sets and a procedure to compute them even if the constructors are not free. The method uses a new notion of provable inconsistency and induction positions (that need to be instantiated by induction schemes) which allows us to refute more false conjectures than with previous approaches. We also present an algorithm to compute all the induction positions of a conditional specification. The method has been implemented in SPIKE. Computer experiments show the superiority of SPIKE concerning mutual induction over explicit induction based systems.


Automated reasoning Theorem Proving Logic and Formal Verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Bachmair. Proof by consistency in equational theories. In Proceedings 3rd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Edinburgh (UK), pages 228–233, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Bouhoula. The challenge of mutual recursion and mutual simplification in implicit induction. Invited talk at the International Workshop on the Automation of Proof by Mathematical Induction, June 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Bouhoula. Preuves Automatiques par Récurrence dans les Théories Conditionnelles. PhD thesis, Université de Nancy 1, March 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Bouhoula. Using induction and rewriting to verify and complete parameterized specifications. Theoretical Computer Science, 170, December 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Bouhoula, E. Kounalis, and M. Rusinowitch. Automated Mathematical Induction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(5):631–668, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bouhoula and M. Rusinowitch. Implicit induction in conditional theories. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 14(2):189–235, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press inc., New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, C. Horn, and A. Smaill. Rippling: A heuristic for guiding inductive proofs. Artificial Intelligence, 62:183–253, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Rewrite systems. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Dowek, A. Felty, H. Herbelin, G. Huet, C. Paulin-Mohring, and B. Werner. The Coq Proof Assistant. User's guide, INRIA-CNRS-ENS, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Fribourg. A strong restriction of the inductive completion procedure. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 8(3):253–276, September 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Huet and J.-M. Hullot. Proofs by induction in equational theories with constructors. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 25(2):239–266, October 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.-P. Jouannaud and E. Kounalis. Automatic proofs by induction in theories without constructors. Information and Computation, 82:1–33, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Kounalis. Testing for the ground (co-)reducibility property in term-rewriting systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 106:87–117, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Kounalis and M. Rusinowitch. A mechanization of conditional reasoning. In First International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, January 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. R. Musser. On proving inductive properties of abstract data types. In Proceedings 7th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 154–162. 1980.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Padawitz. Computing in Horn Clause Theories. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Plaisted. Semantic confluence and completion method. Information and Control, 65:182–215, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    U. S. Reddy. Term rewriting induction. In Proceedings 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, LNCS 449, pages 162–177. 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Zhang, D. Kapur, and M. S. Krishnamoorthy. A mechanizable induction principle for equational specifications. In Proceedings 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, LNCS 310, pages 162–181. 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adel Bouhoula
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA Lorraine & CRINVillers-lès-Nancy CedexFrance
  2. 2.Computer Science LaboratorySRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations