Towards a Framework to Integrate Proof Search Paradigms

Research on automated and interactive theorem proving aims at the mechanization of logical reasoning. Aside from the development of logic calculi it became rapidly apparent that the organization of proof search on top of the calculi is an essential task in the design of powerful theorem proving systems. Different paradigms of how to organize proof search have emerged in that area of research, the most prominent representatives are generally described by the buzzwords: automated theorem proving, tactical theorem proving and proof planning. Despite their paradigmatic differences, all approaches share a common goal: to find a proof for a given conjecture. In this paper we start with a rational reconstruction of proof search paradigms in the area of proof planning and tactical theorem proving. Guided by similarities between software engineering and proof construction we develop a uniform view that accommodates the various proof search methodologies and eases their comparison. Based on this view, we propose a unified framework that enables the combination of different methodologies for proof construction to take advantage of their individual virtues within specific phases of a proof construction.

[1]  Dieter Hutter,et al.  Coloring Terms to Control Equational Reasoning , 1997, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[2]  John C. Reynolds,et al.  The discoveries of continuations , 1993, LISP Symb. Comput..

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

[4]  Dieter Hutter Annotated reasoning , 2004, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  Dieter Hutter,et al.  Equational proof-planning by dynamic abstraction , 1997 .

[6]  Michael J. C. Gordon,et al.  Edinburgh LCF: A mechanised logic of computation , 1979 .

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

[8]  Maritta Heisel,et al.  Tactical Theorem Proving in Program Verification , 1990, CADE.

[9]  M. Jamnik Mathematical reasoning with diagrams : from intuition to automation , 2001 .

[10]  David Kelley A theory of abstraction. , 1984 .

[11]  Xiaorong Huang,et al.  Planning Mathematical Proofs with Methods , 1994, J. Inf. Process. Cybern..

[12]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  Theorem Proving with Abstraction , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  A General Purpose Reasoner for Abstraction , 1996, Canadian Conference on AI.

[14]  Stuart Kent,et al.  Spider Diagrams: A Diagrammatic Reasoning System , 2001, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[15]  Dieter Hutter,et al.  A Pragmatic Approach to Reuse in Tactical Theorem Proving , 2001, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Wayne Snyder,et al.  Basic Paramodulation and Superposition , 1992, CADE.

[17]  M. Gordon HOL: A Proof Generating System for Higher-Order Logic , 1988 .

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

[19]  Volker Sorge,et al.  -Ants { An open approach at combining Interactive and Automated Theorem Proving , 2002 .

[20]  Volker Sorge,et al.  Omega: Towards a Mathematical Assistant , 1997, CADE.

[21]  Andreas Meier System description : TRAMP transformation of machine-found proofs into natural deduction proofs at the assertion level , 2000 .

[22]  Armin Fiedler User-adaptive proof explanation , 2001 .

[23]  Lawrence C. Paulson,et al.  Logic and computation - interactive proof with Cambridge LCF , 1987, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[24]  Andrew Ireland,et al.  The Use of Planning Critics in Mechanizing Inductive Proofs , 1992, LPAR.

[25]  Amy P. Felty,et al.  Specifying Theorem Provers in a Higher-Order Logic Programming Language , 1988, CADE.