Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Performance Data
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Theoretical Computer Science

Progress in Automated Theorem Proving, 1997-2001

Profile image of Christian SuttnerChristian Suttner

2001

Abstract

Despite some impressive individual achievements, the extreme difficulty of Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) means that progress in ATP is slow relative to, e.g., some aspects of commercial information technology. The (relatively) slow progress has two distinct disadvantages. First, for the researchers, it is difficult to determine if a direction of investigation is making a meaningful contribution. Second, for unaware observers, a lack of progress leads to a loss of interest and confidence in the field. In this context it is important that progress in ATP be measured, monitored, and recognized. This paper presents quantitative measures that show progress in ATP, from mid-1997 to mid-2001. The measures are based on collected performance data from ATP systems.

Related papers

Integrating Automated and Interactive Theorem Proving
Anton Setzer

Applied Logic Series, 1998

This paper highlights a project to integrate interactive and automated theorem proving in Software Veri cation. Its aim is to combine the advantages of the two paradigms. We report on the integration concepts, and on the experimental results with a prototype implementation.

View PDFchevron_right
Progress in the Development of Automated Theorem Proving for Higher-Order Logic
Frank Theiss

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2009

The Thousands of Problems for Theorem Provers (TPTP) problem library is the basis of a well established infrastructure supporting research, development, and deployment of first-order Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) systems. Recently, the TPTP has been extended to include problems in higher-order logic, with corresponding infrastructure and resources. This paper describes the practical progress that has been made towards the goal of TPTP support for higher-order ATP systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Experiments in Automatic Theorem Proving
Jussi Ketonen

Today's children start school with plenty of knowledge-TV, the Internet and other virtual reality systems have opened their minds to a whole world of opportunities. But there is a difference between watching the launch and riding in the spaceship-manning the remote is not the same as manning the instrument panel.

View PDFchevron_right
A Grand Challenge of Theorem Discovery
Tam Dreaming

A primary mode of operation of ATP systems is to supply the system with axioms and a conjecture, and to then ask the system to produce a proof (or at least an assurance that there is a proof) that the conjecture is a theorem of the axioms. This paper challenges ATP to a new mode of operation, by which interesting theorems are generated from a set of axioms. The challenge requires solutions to both theoretical and computational issues.

View PDFchevron_right
The philosophy of automated theorem proving
Francis Jeffry Pelletier

1989

Different researchers use "the philosophy of automated theorem proving" to cover different concepts, indeed, different levels of concepts. Some would count such issues as how to efficiently index databases as part of the philosophy of automated theorem proving. Others wonder ...

View PDFchevron_right
A survey of the Theorema project
Mircea Marin

Proceedings of the 1997 international symposium on Symbolic and algebraic computation - ISSAC '97, 1997

The Theorema project aims at extending current computer algebra systems by facilities for supporting mathematical proving. The present early-prototype version of the Theorema software system is implemented in Mathematica 3.0. The system consists of a general higher-order predicate logic prover and a collection of special provers that call each other depending on the particular proof situations. The individual provers imitate the proof style of human mathematicians and aim at producing human-readable proofs in natural language presented in nested cells that facilitate studying the computer-generated proofs at various levels of detail. The special provers are intimately connected with the functors that build up the various mathematical domains.

View PDFchevron_right
ACT-P: A configurable theorem-prover
Ioannis Hatzilygeroudis

Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1994

There has been a considerable amount of research into the provision of explicit representation of control regimes for resolution-based theorem provers. However, most of the existing systems are either not adequate in that they do not allow the user to express any arbitrary control regime, or are too inefficient to be of practical use. In this paper a theorem prover, ACT-P, which is adequate but retains satisfactory efficiency is presented. It does so by providing a number of user-changeable heuristics which are called at specific points during the search for a proof. The set of user-changeable heuristics was determined on the basis of a classification of the heuristics used by existing resolution-based theorem provers.

View PDFchevron_right
Rare Speed-up in Automatic Theorem Proving Reveals Tradeoff Between Computational Time and Information Value
Wilfried Sieg

We show that strategies implemented in automatic theorem proving involve an interesting tradeoff between execution speed, proving speedup/computational time and usefulness of information. We advance formal definitions for these concepts by way of a notion of normality related to an expected (optimal) theoretical speedup when adding useful information (other theorems as axioms), as compared with actual strategies that can be effectively and efficiently implemented. We propose the existence of an ineluctable tradeoff between this normality and computational time complexity. The argument quantifies the usefulness of information in terms of (positive) speed-up. The results disclose a kind of no-free-lunch scenario and a tradeoff of a fundamental nature. The main theorem in this paper together with the numerical experiment---undertaken using two different automatic theorem provers AProS and Prover9 on random theorems of propositional logic---provide strong theoretical and empirical argum...

View PDFchevron_right
TSTP Data-Exchange Formats for Automated Theorem Proving Tools
Stephan Schulz, Geoff Sutcliffe

2004

This paper describes two data-exchange formats for Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) tools. First, a language for writing the problems that are input to ATP systems, and for writing the solutions that are output from ATP systems, is described. Second, a hierarchy of values for specifying the logical status of an ATP problem, as may be established by an ATP system,

View PDFchevron_right
A light-weight integration of automated and interactive theorem proving
Anton Setzer

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2014

In this paper, aimed at dependently typed programmers, we present a novel connection between automated and interactive theorem proving paradigms. The novelty is that the connection offers a better trade-off between usability, efficiency and soundness when compared to existing techniques. This technique allows for a powerful interactive proof framework that facilitates efficient verification of finite domain theorems and guided construction of the proof of infinite domain theorems. Such situations typically occur with industrial verification. As a case study, an embedding of SAT and CTL model checking is presented, both of which have been implemented for the dependently typed proof assistant Agda.Finally, an example of a real world railway control system is presented, and shown using our proof framework to be safe with respect to an abstract model of trains not colliding or derailing. We demonstrate how to formulate safety directly and show using interactive theorem proving that sign...

View PDFchevron_right

References (34)

  1. L. Bachmair, H. Ganzinger, C. Lynch, and W. Snyder. Basic Paramodulation and Superposition. In Kapur D., editor, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, number 607 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 462-476. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  2. N. Dershowitz and L. Vigneron. Rewriting Home Page. http://rewriting.loria.fr/, 2000.
  3. M. Fuchs and G. Sutcliffe. Homogeneous Sets of ATP Problems. Technical Report TR-ARP-09-00, Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 2000.
  4. M. Fujita, J.K. Slaney, and F. Bennett. Automatic Generation of Some Results in Finite Algebra. In R. Bajcsy, editor, Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 52-57. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
  5. U. Furbach, B. Beckert, R. Hähnle, R. Letz, P. Baumgartner, U. Egly, W. Bible, S. Brüning, J. Otten, T. Rath, and T. Schaub. Tableau and Connection Calculi. In W. Bibel and P.H. Schmitt, editors, Automated Deduction -A Basis for Ap- plications, Volume 1: Foundations -Calculi and Methods, pages 3-179. Kluwer, 1998.
  6. T. Hillenbrand, A. Jaeger, and B. Löchner. Waldmeister -Improvements in Per- formance and Ease of Use. In H. Ganzinger, editor, Proceedings of the 16th In- ternational Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1632 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 232-236. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
  7. M. Kaufmann. ACL2 Support for Verification Projects. In C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, editors, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Auto- mated Deduction, number 1421 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 220-238. Springer-Verlag, 1998.
  8. D.E. Knuth and P.B. Bendix. Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras. In Leech J., editor, Computational Problems in Abstract Algebras, pages 263-297. Pergamon Press, 1970.
  9. R.A. Kowalski. Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. In Rosenfeld J.L., editor, Proceedings of the IFIP Congress , pages 569-574. Elsevier Science, 1974.
  10. K. Kunen. Quasigroups, Loops, and Associative Laws. Journal of Algebra, 185:194-204, 1996.
  11. D.W. Loveland. A Simplified Format for the Model Elimination Theorem-Proving Procedure. Journal of the ACM, 16(3):349-363, 1969.
  12. D.W. Loveland. Automated Deduction -Looking Ahead. AI Magazine, 20(1):77- 98, 1999.
  13. E.L. Lusk. Controlling Redundancy in Large Search Spaces: Argonne-Style The- orem Proving Through the Years. In Voronkov A., editor, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning , number 624 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  14. W.W. McCune. Otter 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide. Technical Report ANL- 94/6, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA, 1994.
  15. W.W. McCune. Solution of the Robbins Problem. Journal of Automated Reason- ing, 19(3):263-276, 1997.
  16. W.W. McCune and R. Padmanabhan. Automated Deduction in Equational Logic and Cubic Curves, volume 1095 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1996.
  17. L.J. Peter and R. Hull. The Peter Principle. Souvenir Press, 1969.
  18. I.V. Ramakrishnan, R. Sekar, and A. Voronkov. Term Indexing. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier Science, 1999.
  19. W. Reif. The KIV-approach to Software Verification. In M. Broy and S. Jähnichen, editors, KORSO: Methods, Languages, and Tools for the Construction of Correct Software -Final Report, number 1009 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 1995.
  20. G.A. Robinson and L. Wos. Paramodulation and Theorem Proving in First-Order Theories with Equality. Machine Intelligence, 4:135-150, 1969.
  21. J.A. Robinson. A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle. Journal of the ACM, 12(1):23-41, 1965.
  22. S. Schulz. System Abstract: E 0.3. In H. Ganzinger, editor, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1632 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 297-301. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
  23. J.K. Slaney. CADE-12 invited talk: The Crisis in Finite Mathematics: Automated Reasoning as Cause and Cure. 1994.
  24. M.E. Stickel. A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: A New Exposition and Im- plementation in Prolog. Technical Report Technical Note 464, SRI International, Menlo Park, USA, 1989.
  25. G. Sutcliffe. The CADE-16 ATP System Competition. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24(3):371-396, 2000.
  26. G. Sutcliffe and D. Seyfang. Smart Selective Competition Parallelism ATP. In A. Kumar and I. Russell, editors, Proceedings of the 12th Florida Artificial Intel- ligence Research Symposium, pages 341-345. AAAI Press, 1999.
  27. G. Sutcliffe and C.B. Suttner. The TPTP Problem Library: CNF Release v1.2.1. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 21(2):177-203, 1998.
  28. G. Sutcliffe and C.B. Suttner. ATP System Results for the TPTP Problem Li- brary. http://www.cs.jcu.edu.au/~tptp/TPTP/Results.html, 2000.
  29. G. Sutcliffe and C.B. Suttner. Evaluating General Purpose Automated Theorem Proving Systems. Technical Report 2000/2, School of Information Technology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, 2000.
  30. T. Tammet. Gandalf. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 18(2):199-204, 1997.
  31. A. Voronkov. The Anatomy of Vampire. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 15(2):237-265, 1995.
  32. C. Weidenbach, B. Afshordel, U. Brahm, C. Cohrs, T. Engel, E. Keen, C. Theobalt, and D. Tpoic. System Description: SPASS Version 1.0.0. In H. Ganzinger, editor, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Au- tomated Deduction, number 1632 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 378-382. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
  33. L. Wos, R. Overbeek, and E. Lusk. Subsumption, a Sometimes Undervalued Procedure. Technical Report MCS-P93-0789, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA, 1993.
  34. L. Wos, G.A. Robinson, D.F. Carson, and L. Shalla. The Concept of Demodulation in Theorem Proving. Journal of the ACM, 14(4):698-709, 1967.

Related papers

Progress in Automated Theorem Proving, 1997-1999
Christian Suttner

2000

Despite some impressive individual achievements, the extreme difficulty of Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) means that progress in ATP is slow relative to, e.g., some aspects of commercial information technology. The (relatively) slow progress has two distinct disadvantages. First, for the researchers, it is difficult to determine if a direction of investigation is making a meaningful contribution. Second, for unaware observers, a lack of progress leads to a loss of interest and confidence in the field. A serious outcome of this loss of interest and confidence has been the withdrawal of significant funding for ATP research. In this context of slow progress, it is important that progress in ATP be measured, monitored, and recognized. This paper presents quantitative measures that show progress in ATP, from mid-1997 to the end of 1999. The measures are based on collected performance data from ATP systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluating general purpose automated theorem proving systems
Christian Suttner

Artificial Intelligence, 2001

A key concern of ATP research is the development of more powerful systems, capable of solving more difficult problems within the same resource limits. In order to build more powerful systems, it is important to understand which systems, and hence which techniques, work well for what types of problems. This paper deals with the empirical evaluation of general purpose ATP systems, to determine which systems work well for what types of problems. This requires also dealing with the issues of assigning ATP problems into classes that are reasonably homogeneous with respect to the ATP systems that (attempt to) solve the problems, and assigning ratings to problems based on their difficulty. 

View PDFchevron_right
Problem-oriented applications of automated theorem proving
Christoph Kreitz

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1996

This paper provides an overall view of an approach to developing a coherent ATP-system which can deal with a variety of logics and with different applications in a tailored way. The paper also summarizes research results achieved in the course of this development.

View PDFchevron_right
Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers
Francis Pelletier

Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1965

View PDFchevron_right
The THFTPTP Project --- An Infrastructure for Typed Higher-order Form Automated Theorem Proving Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship Grant Agreement PIIF-GA-2008-219982 Project Report --- Implications
Christoph Benzmüller

2009

There is a well established infrastructure that supports research, development, and deployment of firstorder Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) systems, stemming from the Thousands of Problems for Theorem Provers (TPTP) problem library. This infrastructure includes the TPTP itself, the TPTP language and SZS result ontology, the Thousands of Solutions from Theorem Provers (TSTP) solution library, various tools associated with the libraries, and the CADE ATP System Competition (CASC). This infrastructure has been central to the impressive progress that has been made in the development of high performance first-order ATP systems. The state of the art in higher-order ATP is not as advanced as that of first-order ATP. While there are several effective interactive systems for reasoning in higher-order logic, there has been limited automation. Critically, research and development has not been supported by a commonly accepted infrastructure that provides leverage for progress leading to effect...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Information Technology
  • Automated Theorem Proving
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved