# Difference between revisions of "D32 Provers"

Line 29: | Line 29: | ||

==== Foundations of Event-B's Logic ==== | ==== Foundations of Event-B's Logic ==== | ||

− | The major design | + | The major design decision concerned in which logic the semantics of Event-B's logic is formalized. |

We experimented with ZF set theory and HOL. Finally, we decided to define semantics in terms of a (shallow) embedding into HOL, because that allows us to carry out vast parts of our soundness proofs using Isabelle/HOL. In the long term, the embedding allows us | We experimented with ZF set theory and HOL. Finally, we decided to define semantics in terms of a (shallow) embedding into HOL, because that allows us to carry out vast parts of our soundness proofs using Isabelle/HOL. In the long term, the embedding allows us | ||

to use Isabelle/HOL as an external theorem prover for Rodin. | to use Isabelle/HOL as an external theorem prover for Rodin. |

## Revision as of 12:31, 12 November 2010

## Contents

### Overview

Concerning Rodin's provers the following contributions have been made:

- Jann Röder (ETH Zurich) developed a relevance filter plug-in. The plug-in provides a proof tactic that first removes hypotheses from a given sequent according to several heuristics. The tactic then inputs the reduced sequent to one or several of Rodin's external provers (PP, newPP, ML). Jann Röder carried out experiments using Event-B models from different domains and observed that his tactic significantly increases the number of proof obligations proved automatically.
- Matthias Schmalz (ETH Zurich) worked out the theoretical foundations of Event-B's logic. "Event-B's logic" stands for the formalism in which, e.g., guards, invariants, axioms, and theorems are expressed, and proof obligations are expressed and proved. He provides a rigorous specification of syntax, semantics, proofs, theories, and mathematical extensions in
**one**document. The document encompasses a small theory "Core", proves "Core"'s soundness, and shows how to define the remaining operators, types, and binders available in Rodin using mathematical extensions. The document thus provides a proof calculus for Event-B that is sound by construction, and a methodology for reasoning about the soundness of Event-B proof rules within Event-B. The document also allows users to look-up definitions of predefined operators and binders, answering questions like "what is the meaning of <math>x \div y</math> if <math>x</math> or <math>y</math> is negative". For developers, it sheds some light on intricate questions concerning partial functions, e.g., why is it sound to rewrite <math>x \in \{y \mid \varphi(y)\}</math> to <math>\varphi(x)</math> but unsound (in general) to rewrite <math>\varphi(x)</math> to <math>x \in \{y \mid \varphi(y)\}</math>.

### Motivations

#### Relevance Filtering

Rodin's external provers (PP, newPP, ML) tend to timeout if the given sequent contains many irrelevant hypotheses. For PP and newPP the user can still manually select the hypotheses he considers relevant, but that is a tedious and error-prone process, in particular for large models. Several heuristics for selecting relevant hypotheses have been proposed in the literatur. The relevance filter plug-in implements these heuristics and provides a default configuration that has been shown to be almost optimal on a given collection of models from different domains. The relevance filter plug-in has also significantly increased the number of automatically proved proof obligations on models of industrial partners, which have not been used for fine tuning the heuristics.

#### Foundations of Event-B's Logic

As Rodin is used to develop safety critical systems, bugs in Rodin's theorem prover constitute a serious problem. Unfortunately, several bugs have been discovered that make Rodin's theorem prover unsound. Obviously, any examination of soundness presupposes a clearly written specification of the logic's syntax, semantics, and proof calculus. There are several publications on the logic of Event-B, but they fail to serve as specification documents, because the described logic itself is inconsistent [1] or only fragments of the logic implemented in Rodin are considered [2] [3]. Therefore a new specification document has been written [4].

Mathematical extensions play an important role in avoiding unsoundness, because they allow the user to define new operators, binders, types, and inference and rewrite rules in a soundness preserving fashion. Therefore, the report [5] also devises the theoretical foundations of mathematical extensions. Note that mathematical extensions are well-understood for, e.g., HOL, but the extension methods for HOL cannot be straightforwardly adopted for Event-B because of Event-B's well-definedness mechanism and non-standard term rewriting.

### Choices / Decisions

#### Foundations of Event-B's Logic

The major design decision concerned in which logic the semantics of Event-B's logic is formalized. We experimented with ZF set theory and HOL. Finally, we decided to define semantics in terms of a (shallow) embedding into HOL, because that allows us to carry out vast parts of our soundness proofs using Isabelle/HOL. In the long term, the embedding allows us to use Isabelle/HOL as an external theorem prover for Rodin.

Other design decisions are discussed in [6].

### Available Documentation

- The internals of the relevance filter plug-in and the process of fine tuning are documented in: J. Röder, Relevance Filters for Event-B, Master Thesis, ETH Zurich, 2010.
- A rigorous specification of Event-B's logic (for Rodin developers) and a reference document containing the definitions of built-in symbols (for Rodin developers and users): M. Schmalz, The logic of Event-B, Technical Report 698, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 2010.

### Planning

In DEPLOY's fourth year, we intend to provide an interface between Rodin and Isabelle. That allows