Certified Connection Tableaux Proofs for HOL Light and TPTP

In recent years, the Metis prover based on ordered paramodulation and model elimination has replaced the earlier built-in methods for general-purpose proof automation in HOL4 and Isabelle/HOL. In the annual CASC competition, the leanCoP system based on connection tableaux has however performed better than Metis. In this paper we show how the leanCoP's core algorithm can be implemented inside HOL Light. leanCoP's flagship feature, namely its minimalistic core, results in a very simple proof system. This plays a crucial role in extending the MESON proof reconstruction mechanism to connection tableaux proofs, providing an implementation of leanCoP that certifies its proofs. We discuss the differences between our direct implementation using an explicit Prolog stack,to the continuation passing implementation of MESON present in HOL Light and compare their performance on all core HOL Light goals. The resulting prover can be also used as a general purpose TPTP prover. We compare its performance against the resolution based Metis on TPTP and other interesting datasets.

[1]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  Learning-assisted theorem proving with millions of lemmas☆ , 2015, J. Symb. Comput..

[2]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  HOL(y)Hammer: Online ATP Service for HOL Light , 2013, Math. Comput. Sci..

[3]  John Harrison,et al.  Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning , 2009 .

[4]  Lawrence C. Paulson,et al.  A Generic Tableau Prover and its Integration with Isabelle , 1999, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Paolo Maffezioli,et al.  Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, International Conference, TABLEAUX 2005, Koblenz, Germany, September 14-17, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, TABLEAUX.

[6]  Larry Wos,et al.  Otter - The CADE-13 Competition Incarnations , 1997, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[7]  Jens Otten.  Restricting backtracking in connection calculi , 2010, AI Commun..

[8]  Alan Robinson,et al.  The Inverse Method , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[9]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  leanTAP: Lean tableau-based deduction , 1995, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[10]  Reinhold Letz,et al.  Model Elimination and Connection Tableau Procedures , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[11]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  Handbook of Automated Reasoning (in 2 volumes) , 2001 .

[12]  Josef Urban,et al.  ATP and Presentation Service for Mizar Formalizations , 2011, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[13]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  PRocH: Proof Reconstruction for HOL Light , 2013, CADE.

[14]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  MizAR 40 for Mizar 40 , 2013, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[15]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  First-Order Theorem Proving and Vampire , 2013, CAV.

[16]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  Sine Qua Non for Large Theory Reasoning , 2011, CADE.

[17]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  A Linear Operational Semantics for Termination and Complexity Analysis of ISO Prolog , 2011, LOPSTR.

[18]  Annabelle McIver,et al.  Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning , 2015, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Thibault Gauthier,et al.  Premise Selection and External Provers for HOL4 , 2015, CPP.

[20]  Josef Urban,et al.  MPTP 0.2: Design, Implementation, and Initial Experiments , 2006, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[21]  Jens Otten,et al.  Clausal Connection-Based Theorem Proving in Intuitionistic First-Order Logic , 2005, TABLEAUX.

[22]  Josef Urban,et al.  Evaluation of Automated Theorem Proving on the Mizar Mathematical Library , 2010, ICMS.

[23]  Mark E. Stickel.  A prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler , 1986, CADE.

[24]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  Stronger Automation for Flyspeck by Feature Weighting and Strategy Evolution , 2013, PxTP@CADE.

[25]  Wolfgang Bibel,et al.  leanCoP: lean connection-based theorem proving , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[26]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  Mechanical Theorem-Proving by Model Elimination , 1968, JACM.

[27]  Josef Urban,et al.  Theorem Proving in Large Formal Mathematics as an Emerging AI Field , 2013, Automated Reasoning and Mathematics.

[28]  John Harrison,et al.  Optimizing Proof Search in Model Elimination , 1996, CADE.

[29]  Josef Urban,et al.  MaLeCoP Machine Learning Connection Prover , 2011, TABLEAUX.

[30]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  MaSh: Machine Learning for Sledgehammer , 2013, ITP.

[31]  Lawrence C. Paulson,et al.  Source-Level Proof Reconstruction for Interactive Theorem Proving , 2007, TPHOLs.

[32]  Stephan Schulz,et al.  System Description: E 1.8 , 2013, LPAR.

[33]  Christoph Weidenbach.  System Description: Spass Version 1.0.0 , 1999, CADE.

[34]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  Computing Small Clause Normal Forms , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[35]  J. Hurd.  First-Order Proof Tactics in Higher-Order Logic Theorem Provers In Proc , 2003 .

[36]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  Sledgehammer: Judgement Day , 2010, IJCAR.

[37]  Cezary Kaliszyk,et al.  Machine Learning of Coq Proof Guidance: First Experiments , 2014, SCSS.

[38]  Holger Hermanns,et al.  Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[39]  Josef Urban,et al.  Overview and Evaluation of Premise Selection Techniques for Large Theory Mathematics , 2012, IJCAR.

[40]  Jesse Alama,et al.  Premise Selection for Mathematics by Corpus Analysis and Kernel Methods , 2011, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[41]  Jasmin Christian Blanchette,et al.  Three years of experience with Sledgehammer, a Practical Link Between Automatic and Interactive Theorem Provers , 2012, IWIL@LPAR.

[42]  Geoff Sutcliffe.  The CADE-21 automated theorem proving system competition , 2008, AI Commun..

[43]  KaliszykCezary,et al.  Learning-Assisted Automated Reasoning with Flyspeck , 2014 .