This paper describes SEPIA, a tool for automated proof generation in Coq. SEPIA combines model inference with interactive theorem proving. Existing proof corpora are modelled using state-based models inferred from tactic sequences. These can then be traversed automatically to identify proofs. The SEPIA system is described and its performance evaluated on three Coq datasets. Our results show that SEPIA provides a useful complement to existing automated tactics in Coq.
Jamnik have previously applied an Inductive Logic Programming technique to examples of proofs in the @math mega system @cite_6 . Given a collection of well chosen proof method sequences, Jamnik perform a method of least generalisation to infer what are ultimately regular grammars. The value of even basic models is intuitive. Proofs could be derived automatically using the technique. However, the proof steps learned do not contain any parameters. The parameters required are reconstructed after running the learning technique.
@cite_6
1889756448 2102928769 2063371232 2093111544
We present combined-case k-induction, a novel technique for verifying software programs. This technique draws on the strengths of the classical inductive-invariant method and a recent application of k-induction to program verification. In previous work, correctness of programs was established by separately proving a base case and inductive step. We present a new k-induction rule that takes an unstructured, reducible control flow graph (CFG), a natural loop occurring in the CFG, and a positive integer k, and constructs a single CFG in which the given loop is eliminated via an unwinding proportional to k. Recursively applying the proof rule eventually yields a loop-free CFG, which can be checked using SAT- SMT-based techniques. We state soundness of the rule, and investigate its theoretical properties. We then present two implementations of our technique: K-INDUCTOR, a verifier for C programs built on top of the CBMC model checker, and K-BOOGIE, an extension of the Boogie tool. Our experiments, using a large set of benchmarks, demonstrate that our k-induction technique frequently allows program verification to succeed using significantly weaker loop invariants than are required with the standard inductive invariant approach. We propose natural proofs for reasoning with programs that manipulate data-structures against specifications that describe the structure of the heap, the data stored within it, and separation and framing of sub-structures. Natural proofs are a subclass of proofs that are amenable to completely automated reasoning, that provide sound but incomplete procedures, and that capture common reasoning tactics in program verification. We develop a dialect of separation logic over heaps, called Dryad, with recursive definitions that avoids explicit quantification. We develop ways to reason with heaplets using classical logic over the theory of sets, and develop natural proofs for reasoning using proof tactics involving disciplined unfoldings and formula abstractions. Natural proofs are encoded into decidable theories of first-order logic so as to be discharged using SMT solvers. We also implement the technique and show that a large class of more than 100 correct programs that manipulate data-structures are amenable to full functional correctness using the proposed natural proof method. These programs are drawn from a variety of sources including standard data-structures, the Schorr-Waite algorithm for garbage collection, a large number of low-level C routines from the Glib library and OpenBSD library, the Linux kernel, and routines from a secure verified OS-browser project. Our work is the first that we know of that can handle such a wide range of full functional verification properties of heaps automatically, given pre post and loop invariant annotations. We believe that this work paves the way for deductive verification technology to be used by programmers who do not (and need not) understand the internals of the underlying logic solvers, significantly increasing their applicability in building reliable systems. In this paper we present an approach to automated learning within mathematical reasoning systems. In particular, the approach enables proof planning systems to automatically learn new proof methods from well-chosen examples of proofs which use a similar reasoning pattern to prove related theorems. Our approach consists of an abstract representation for methods and a machine learning technique which can learn methods using this representation formalism. We present an implementation of the approach within the mega proof planning system, which we call Learnma tic. We also present the results of the experiments that we ran on this implementation in order to evaluate if and how it improves the power of proof planning systems. Abstract Miller, D., G. Nadathur, F. Pfenning and A. Scedrov, Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 51 (1991) 125–157. A proof-theoretic characterization of logical languages that form suitable bases for Prolog-like programming languages is provided. This characterization is based on the principle that the declarative meaning of a logic program, provided by provability in a logical system, should coincide with its operational meaning, provided by interpreting logical connectives as simple and fixed search instructions. The operational semantics is formalized by the identification of a class of cut-free sequent proofs called uniform proofs . A uniform proof is one that can be found by a goal-directed search that respects the interpretation of the logical connectives as search instructions. The concept of a uniform proof is used to define the notion of an abstract logic programming language , and it is shown that first-order and higher-order Horn clauses with classical provability are examples of such a language. Horn clauses are then generalized to hereditary Harrop formulas and it is shown that first-order and higher-order versions of this new class of formulas are also abstract logic programming languages if the inference rules are those of either intuitionistic or minimal logic. The programming language significance of the various generalizations to first-order Horn clauses is briefly discussed.