Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAutomating Induction by Reflection
78
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Johannes Schoisswohl
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Despite recent advances in automating theorem proving in full first-order theories, inductive reasoning still poses a serious challenge to state-of-the-art theorem provers. The reason for that is that in first-order logic induction requires an infinite number of axioms, which is not a feasible input to a computer-aided theorem prover requiring a finite input. Mathematical practice is to specify these infinite sets of axioms as axiom schemes. Unfortunately these schematic definitions cannot be formalized in first-order logic, and therefore not supported as inputs for first-order theorem provers. In this work we introduce a new method, inspired by the field of axiomatic theories of truth, that allows to express schematic inductive definitions, in the standard syntax of multi-sorted first-order logic. Further we test the practical feasibility of the method with state-of-the-art theorem provers, comparing it to solvers native techniques for handling induction.
rate research
Read More
Despite recent advances in automating theorem proving in full first-order theories, inductive reasoning still poses a serious challenge to state-of-the-art theorem provers. The reason for that is that in first-order logic induction requires an infinite number of axioms, which is not a feasible input to a computer-aided theorem prover requiring a finite input. Mathematical practice is to specify these infinite sets of axioms as axiom schemes. Unfortunately these schematic definitions cannot be formalized in first-order logic, and therefore not supported as inputs for first-order theorem provers. In this work we introduce a new method, inspired by the field of axiomatic theories of truth, that allows to express schematic inductive definitions, in the standard syntax of multi-sorted first-order logic. Further we test the practical feasibility of the method with state-of-the-art theorem provers, comparing it to solvers native techniques for handling induction. This paper is an extended version of the LFMTP 21 submission with the same title.
The principle of strong induction, also known as k-induction is one of the first techniques for unbounded SAT-based Model Checking (SMC). While elegant and simple to apply, properties as such are rarely k-inductive and when they can be strengthened, there is no effective strategy to guess the depth of induction. It has been mostly displaced by techniques that compute inductive strengthenings based on interpolation and property directed reachability (Pdr). In this paper, we present kAvy, an SMC algorithm that effectively uses k-induction to guide interpolation and Pdr-style inductive generalization. Unlike pure k-induction, kAvy uses Pdr-style generalization to compute and strengthen an inductive trace. Unlike pure Pdr, kAvy uses relative k-induction to construct an inductive invariant. The depth of induction is adjusted dynamically by minimizing a proof of unsatisfiability. We have implemented kAvy within the Avy Model Checker and evaluated it on HWMCC instances. Our results show that kAvy is more effective than both Avy and Pdr, and that using k-induction leads to faster running time and solving more instances. Further, on a class of benchmarks, called shift, kAvy is orders of magnitude faster than Avy, Pdr and k-induction.
In functional programming, datatypes a la carte provide a convenient modular representation of recursive datatypes, based on their initial algebra semantics. Unfortunately it is highly challenging to implement this technique in proof assistants that are based on type theory, like Coq. The reason is that it involves type definitions, such as those of type-level fixpoint operators, that are not strictly positive. The known work-around of impredicative encodings is problematic, insofar as it impedes conventional inductive reasoning. Weak induction principles can be used instead, but they considerably complicate proofs. This paper proposes a novel and simpler technique to reason inductively about impredicative encodings, based on Mendler-style induction. This technique involves dispensing with dependent induction, ensuring that datatypes can be lifted to predicates and relying on relational formulations. A case study on proving subject reduction for structural operational semantics illustrates that the approach enables modular proofs, and that these proofs are essentially similar to conventional ones.
In control theory, to solve a finite-horizon sequential decision problem (SDP) commonly means to find a list of decision rules that result in an optimal expected total reward (or cost) when taking a given number of decision steps. SDPs are routinely solved using Bellmans backward induction. Textbook authors (e.g. Bertsekas or Puterman) typically give more or less formal proofs to show that the backward induction algorithm is correct as solution method for deterministic and stochastic SDPs. Botta, Jansson and Ionescu propose a generic framework for finite horizon, monadic SDPs together with a monadic version of backward induction for solving such SDPs. In monadic SDPs, the monad captures a generic notion of uncertainty, while a generic measure function aggregates rewards. In the present paper we define a notion of correctness for monadic SDPs and identify three conditions that allow us to prove a correctness result for monadic backward induction that is comparable to textbook correctness proofs for ordinary backward induction. The conditions that we impose are fairly general and can be cast in category-theoretical terms using the notion of Eilenberg-Moore-algebra. They hold in familiar settings like those of deterministic or stochastic SDPs but we also give examples in which they fail. Our results show that backward induction can safely be employed for a broader class of SDPs than usually treated in textbooks. However, they also rule out certain instances that were considered admissible in the context of Botta et al.s generic framework. Our development is formalised in Idris as an extension of the Botta et al. framework and the sources are available as supplementary material.
PKind is a novel parallel k-induction-based model checker of invariant properties for finite- or infinite-state Lustre programs. Its architecture, which is strictly message-based, is designed to minimize synchronization delays and easily accommodate the incorporation of incremental invariant generators to enhance basic k-induction. We describe PKinds functionality and main features, and present experimental evidence that PKind significantly speeds up the verification of safety properties and, due to incremental invariant generation, also considerably increases the number of provable ones.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
