Proof Planning for First-Order Temporal Logic

Proof planning is an automated reasoning technique which improves proof search by raising it to a meta-level. In this paper we apply proof planning to First-Order Linear Temporal Logic (FOLTL), which can be seen as a quantified version of Linear Temporal Logic, overcoming its finitary limitation. Automated reasoning in FOLTL is hard, since it is non-recursively enumerable; but its expressiveness can be exploited to precisely model the behaviour of complex, infinite-state systems. In order to demonstrate the potentiality of our technique, we introduce a case-study inspired by the Feature Interactions problem and we model it in FOLTL; we then describe a set of methods which tackle and solve the validation problem for a number of properties of the model; and lastly we present a set of experimental results showing that the methods we propose capture the common patterns in the proofs presented, guide the search at the object level and let the overall system build large and highly structured proofs. This paper to some extent improves over previous work that showed how proof planning can be used to detect such interactions.

[1]  F. Wolter,et al.  Fragments of first-order temporal logics , 2000 .

[2]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Gerard J. Holzmann,et al.  Design and Validation of Protocols: A Tutorial , 1993, Comput. Networks ISDN Syst..

[4]  Gerard J. Holzmann,et al.  The Model Checker SPIN , 1997, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[5]  Amy P. Felty,et al.  Implementing tactics and tacticals in a higher-order logic programming language , 1993, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[6]  Alan Bundy.  Proof Planning , 1996, AIPS.

[7]  Amy P. Felty,et al.  Temporal Logic Theorem Proving and its Application to the Feature Interaction Problem , 2001 .

[8]  Erica Melis,et al.  Knowledge-Based Proof Planning , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Muffy Calder,et al.  Using SPIN for feature interaction analysis—a case study , 2001, SPIN '01.

[10]  Martín Abadi,et al.  Nonclausal deduction in first-order temporal logic , 1990, JACM.

[11]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VII, June 11-13, 2003, Ottawa, Canada , 2003, FIW.

[12]  Muffy Calder,et al.  Automatic verification of any number of concurrent, communicating processes , 2002, Proceedings 17th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering,.

[13]  Alan Smaill,et al.  Centre for Intelligent Systems and Their Applications a Systematic Presentation of Quantified Modal Logics a Systematic Presentation of Quantified Modal Logics a Systematic Presentation of Quantified Modal Logics , 2022 .

[14]  Nancy D. Griffeth,et al.  A feature interaction benchmark for the first feature interaction detection contest , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[15]  Manfred Kerber,et al.  Proof Planning: A Practical Approach to Mechanized Reasoning in Mathematics , 1998 .

[16]  Jacques D. Fleuriot,et al.  Proof planning Non-standard Analysis , 2002, ISAIM.

[17]  Michael Fisher,et al.  Monodic temporal resolution , 2003, TOCL.

[18]  Muffy Calder,et al.  Feature interaction detection by pairwise analysis of LTL properties—A case study , 2006, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[19]  Mario Kolberg,et al.  Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast , 2003, Comput. Networks.

[20]  Gopalan Nadathur,et al.  Higher-Order Logic Programming , 1986, ICLP.

[21]  Alan Smaill,et al.  Proof Planning for Feature Interactions: A Preliminary Report , 2002, LPAR.

[22]  Claudio Castellini,et al.  Automated reasoning in quantified modal and temporal logics , 2005, AI Commun..

[23]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Experiments in Automating Hardware Verification Using Inductive Proof Planning , 1996, FMCAD.

[24]  Alan Bundy,et al.  The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs , 1988, CADE.

[25]  Amy P. Felty,et al.  Feature specification and automated conflict detection , 2003, TSEM.