Automated first-order theorem provers have matured as standalone tools to the point that they can be used within a larger infrastructure like Isabelle’s Sledgehammer. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference to the spread of SAT solvers, that occur in simple applications like configuration management but are reliably used in tight loops of larger tool chains, not the least in SMT Solvers or instantiation / AVATAR based ATPs. We cannot expect a similar level of integration due to the higher expressiveness of general purpose theorem proving. Nonetheless, here we will identify some aspects that could improve the acceptance in industry. Automated theorem provers have seen use as back-ends in larger software packages (various hammers, TLAPS) but are rarely used within a tool chain. For decidable theories, SMT solvers certainly have better properties but in this context, we focus mostly on their use as general purpose theorem provers (in other words, any SMT-LIB logic that includes uninterpreted functions and quantifier support). The ability to produce models still distinguishes SMT solvers but the support of full first order logic confronts them with similar problems as other ATPs. Many of these problems are of a technical nature: the integration of a theorem prover into an industrial project brings several external requirements into play that are easily dealt with in interactive modes. The software might need to run in a certain operating system or avoid optional components under the GPL license. The availability of certain prover features also often depends on such optional components. For example, an arbitrary precision library might only provide integers where its differently licensed alternative also provides unbounded real numbers. In interactive use, we can often restate the problem to avoid real numbers altogether. A human can also investigate the reasons for time outs easier. We summarize these problems under the titles common availability, standardized interfaces, and reliability. The analysis is centred around CVC4, E Prover, iProver, SPASS, Vampire, veriT, and Z3.
[1]
Nikolaj Bjørner,et al.
Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver
,
2008,
TACAS.
[2]
Pascal Fontaine,et al.
veriT: An Open, Trustable and Efficient SMT-Solver
,
2009,
CADE.
[3]
Konstantin Korovin,et al.
iProver - An Instantiation-Based Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic (System Description)
,
2008,
IJCAR.
[4]
Renate A. Schmidt.
Automated Deduction - CADE-22, 22nd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Montreal, Canada, August 2-7, 2009. Proceedings
,
2009,
CADE.
[5]
Stephan Schulz,et al.
System Description: E 1.8
,
2013,
LPAR.
[6]
Christoph Weidenbach,et al.
SPASS Version 3.5
,
2009,
CADE.