Advertisement

Machine Learning for Inductive Theorem Proving

  • Yaqing JiangEmail author
  • Petros Papapanagiotou
  • Jacques Fleuriot
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11110)

Abstract

Over the past few years, machine learning has been successfully combined with automated theorem provers to prove conjectures from proof assistants. However, such approaches do not usually focus on inductive proofs. In this work, we explore a combination of machine learning, a simple Boyer-Moore model and ATPs as a means of improving the automation of inductive proofs in the proof assistant HOL Light. We evaluate the framework using a number of inductive proof corpora. In each case, our approach achieves a higher success rate than running ATPs or the Boyer-Moore tool individually.

Keywords

Induction Lemma selection Theorem proving Machine learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by EPSRC grants: ProofPeer: Collaborative Theorem Proving EP/L011794/1 and The Integration and Interaction of Multiple Mathematical Reasoning Processes EP/N014758/1. It was also supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

References

  1. 1.
    Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development: Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07964-5CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blanchette, J.C., Kaliszyk, C., Paulson, L.C., Urban, J.: Hammering towards QED. J. Formaliz. Reason. 9(1), 101–148 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boulton, R.: Boyer-Moore automation for the HOL system. In: Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications, pp. 133–142. Elsevier (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyer, R., Moore, J.: A Computational Logic. ACM Monograph Series. Academic Press, Cambridge (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Browne, C., et al.: A survey of Monte Carlo tree search methods. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 4(1), 1–43 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bundy, A.: The automation of proof by mathematical induction. Technical report (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claessen, K., Johansson, M., Rosén, D., Smallbone, N.: HipSpec: automating inductive proofs of program properties. In: ATx/WInG@ IJCAR, pp. 16–25 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Claessen, K., Johansson, M., Rosén, D., Smallbone, N.: Automating inductive proofs using theory exploration. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7898, pp. 392–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cruanes, S.: Superposition with structural induction. In: Dixon, C., Finger, M. (eds.) FroCoS 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10483, pp. 172–188. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66167-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Moura, L., 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).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixon, L., Fleuriot, J.: IsaPlanner: a prototype proof planner in Isabelle. In: Baader, F. (ed.) CADE 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2741, pp. 279–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45085-6_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dixon, L., Johansson, M.: IsaPlanner 2: a proof planner in Isabelle. DReaM Technical report (System description) (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gauthier, T., Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J.: TacticToe: learning to reason with HOL4 tactics. In: 21st International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, LPAR-21, vol. 46, pp. 125–143 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gauthier, T., Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J., Kumar, R., Norrish, M.: Learning to prove with tactics. CoRR abs/1804.00596 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00596
  15. 15.
    Harrison, J.: HOL light: a tutorial introduction. In: Srivas, M., Camilleri, A. (eds.) FMCAD 1996. LNCS, vol. 1166, pp. 265–269. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0031814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harrison, J.: Optimizing proof search in model elimination. In: McRobbie, M.A., Slaney, J.K. (eds.) CADE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1104, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61511-3_97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heras, J., Komendantskaya, E.: ACL2(ml): machine-learning for ACL2. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.3034 (2014)
  18. 18.
    Heras, J., Komendantskaya, E., Johansson, M., Maclean, E.: Proof-pattern recognition and lemma discovery in ACL2. In: McMillan, K., Middeldorp, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8312, pp. 389–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45221-5_27CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson, M., Dixon, L., Bundy, A.: Conjecture synthesis for inductive theories. J. Autom. Reason. 47(3), 251–289 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J.: Learning-assisted automated reasoning with flyspeck. J. Autom. Reason. 53, 1–41 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J.: HoL(y)Hammer: online ATP service for HOL Light. Math. Comput. Sci. 9(1), 5–22 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.: Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Advances in Formal Methods. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3188-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kovács, L., Voronkov, A.: First-order theorem proving and Vampire. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 1–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kühlwein, D., Blanchette, J.C., Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J.: MaSh: machine learning for Sledgehammer. In: Blazy, S., Paulin-Mohring, C., Pichardie, D. (eds.) ITP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7998, pp. 35–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39634-2_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meng, J., Paulson, L.C.: Lightweight relevance filtering for machine-generated resolution problems. J. Appl. Log. 7(1), 41–57 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higherorder Logic, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45949-9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Papapanagiotou, P., Fleuriot, J.: The Boyer-Moore waterfall model revisited (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paulson, L.C., Blanchette, J.C.: Three years of experience with Sledgehammer, a practical link between automatic and interactive theorem provers. In: IWIL-2010, vol. 1 (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schulz, S.: E-A Brainiac theorem prover. AI Commun. 15(2, 3), 111–126 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott, P.: Ordered geometry in Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Edinburgh (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Urban, J.: BliStr: the blind strategymaker. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.2683 (2013)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaqing Jiang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Petros Papapanagiotou
    • 1
  • Jacques Fleuriot
    • 1
  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options