Difference between revisions of "D32 Provers"

From Event-B
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
=== Overview ===
 
=== Overview ===
 
Concerning Rodin's provers the following contributions have been made:
 
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.
+
* Jann Röder (ETH Zurich) has 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 [[D32 Mathematical Extensions|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>.
+
* Matthias Schmalz (ETH Zurich) has 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 [[D32 Mathematical Extensions|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 ===
 
=== Motivations ===
Line 42: Line 42:
 
=== Planning ===
 
=== Planning ===
  
In DEPLOY's fourth year, we intend to provide an interface between Rodin and Isabelle.
+
In DEPLOY's fourth year, we intend to provide a link-up between Rodin and Isabelle/HOL.
That allows  
+
That allows us to implement proof tactics that internally use Isabelle/HOL to discharge the given sequent.
 +
Consistency of these tactics depends merely on the consistency of Isabelle/HOL and correctness of the translation from Event-B to Isabelle/HOL, which is quite straightforward.
 +
As Isabelle/HOL comes with link-ups to first-order solvers such as E, Spass, and Vampire and SMT solvers such as Z3,
 +
a link-up between Rodin and Isabelle/HOL makes these solvers also available to Rodin.
  
 
[[Category:D32 Deliverable]]
 
[[Category:D32 Deliverable]]
 
[[Category:Books]]
 
[[Category:Books]]

Revision as of 13:37, 12 November 2010

Overview

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

  • Jann Röder (ETH Zurich) has 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) has 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

Planning

In DEPLOY's fourth year, we intend to provide a link-up between Rodin and Isabelle/HOL. That allows us to implement proof tactics that internally use Isabelle/HOL to discharge the given sequent. Consistency of these tactics depends merely on the consistency of Isabelle/HOL and correctness of the translation from Event-B to Isabelle/HOL, which is quite straightforward. As Isabelle/HOL comes with link-ups to first-order solvers such as E, Spass, and Vampire and SMT solvers such as Z3, a link-up between Rodin and Isabelle/HOL makes these solvers also available to Rodin.