Difference between revisions of "D23 Improvements to Existing Provers"
imported>Laurent m (D23 Improvements on Existing Provers moved to D23 Improvements to Existing Provers: english) |
imported>Laurent (Heavy editing of the page) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Overview = | = Overview = | ||
| − | + | Proving is at the core of the Rodin methodology. Therefore, it was no surprise | |
| − | + | that both industrial and academic users reported a lot of feedback on this | |
| − | + | topic. This feedback was provided either by mail or though the SourceForge | |
| − | + | trackers. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | Based on this feedback, several actions were taken to improve the existing | |
| + | tooling for both automated and interactive proving. Some consisted in | ||
| + | improving existing tools, while others needed a full design and development of | ||
| + | new tools (especially for visualizing and managing proofs). Finally, an | ||
| + | extension of the proving framework API as been realised to allow for the | ||
| + | development of new plug-ins (such as the rule based prover). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Systerel has been in charge of existing prover improvements, with support from | ||
| + | ETH Zurich. The evolution of the API has been designed in close collaboration | ||
| + | with University of Southampton. | ||
| − | |||
= Motivations = | = Motivations = | ||
| Line 21: | Line 28: | ||
: Proof purging. | : Proof purging. | ||
: Proof simplifying. | : Proof simplifying. | ||
| − | |||
* Facilitating manual proof review or reuse. | * Facilitating manual proof review or reuse. | ||
: Proof skeleton view. | : Proof skeleton view. | ||
| − | : Copy / paste | + | : Copy / paste of partial proofs. |
* Prover API evolution. | * Prover API evolution. | ||
: New tactic provider API. | : New tactic provider API. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 36: | ||
= Choices / Decisions = | = Choices / Decisions = | ||
| − | + | The proving API one year ago asked that available proof commands would be | |
| − | + | completely determined statically (at application startup). This decision had | |
| − | + | to be revised to allow for dynamically contributed proof commands. This change | |
| + | was required not only for regular rules where several options could be | ||
| + | considered based on available hypotheses, but also for plugging in the rule | ||
| + | based prover, developed by University of Southampton. This API extension was | ||
| + | fully designed and discussed through the Rodin wiki. | ||
| + | : See [http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/New_Tactic_Providers http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/New_Tactic_Providers]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Following to the detection of incorrect proof rules implemented in the tool, a | ||
| + | complete review of all proof rules and their implementation has been carried | ||
| + | out. Moreover, a review procedure has been defined to lower the risk that such | ||
| + | glitches happen again in the future. Also, the decision to develop a rule | ||
| + | based prover (where rules must be formally proved before being used) will | ||
| + | provide greater confidence in the correctness of the prover. | ||
| − | + | In the current setting, proof files can grow very large (in the order of tens | |
| + | of megabytes). This is partly caused by the usage of the Rodin database | ||
| + | mechanism for storing proofs in XML files. At the last DEPLOY workshop | ||
| + | (October 2009), several other options have been discussed to reduce this memory | ||
| + | footprint. This issue is beging further investigated. | ||
= Available Documentation = | = Available Documentation = | ||
| Line 55: | Line 77: | ||
The above mentioned improvements were made available since release 1.1 of the platform: | The above mentioned improvements were made available since release 1.1 of the platform: | ||
: [http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/Rodin_Platform_1.1_Release_Notes http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/Rodin_Platform_1.1_Release_Notes] | : [http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/Rodin_Platform_1.1_Release_Notes http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/Rodin_Platform_1.1_Release_Notes] | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the third year of DEPLOY, most effort in the proving area will be put into: | ||
| + | : better management of well-definedness conditions, | ||
| + | : improvement to the rule based prover, | ||
| + | : bridging the gap with external SMT solvers, | ||
| + | : supporting mathematical extensions in proofs. | ||
[[Category:D23 Deliverable]] | [[Category:D23 Deliverable]] | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 7 January 2010
Overview
Proving is at the core of the Rodin methodology. Therefore, it was no surprise that both industrial and academic users reported a lot of feedback on this topic. This feedback was provided either by mail or though the SourceForge trackers.
Based on this feedback, several actions were taken to improve the existing tooling for both automated and interactive proving. Some consisted in improving existing tools, while others needed a full design and development of new tools (especially for visualizing and managing proofs). Finally, an extension of the proving framework API as been realised to allow for the development of new plug-ins (such as the rule based prover).
Systerel has been in charge of existing prover improvements, with support from ETH Zurich. The evolution of the API has been designed in close collaboration with University of Southampton.
Motivations
Areas of improvement for provers can be summarized as follows:
- Reducing proving time and effort.
- New proof rules.
- Reflecting prover implementation corrections.
- Reasoner versioning.
- Reducing proof storage space.
- Proof purging.
- Proof simplifying.
- Facilitating manual proof review or reuse.
- Proof skeleton view.
- Copy / paste of partial proofs.
- Prover API evolution.
- New tactic provider API.
Choices / Decisions
The proving API one year ago asked that available proof commands would be completely determined statically (at application startup). This decision had to be revised to allow for dynamically contributed proof commands. This change was required not only for regular rules where several options could be considered based on available hypotheses, but also for plugging in the rule based prover, developed by University of Southampton. This API extension was fully designed and discussed through the Rodin wiki.
Following to the detection of incorrect proof rules implemented in the tool, a complete review of all proof rules and their implementation has been carried out. Moreover, a review procedure has been defined to lower the risk that such glitches happen again in the future. Also, the decision to develop a rule based prover (where rules must be formally proved before being used) will provide greater confidence in the correctness of the prover.
In the current setting, proof files can grow very large (in the order of tens of megabytes). This is partly caused by the usage of the Rodin database mechanism for storing proofs in XML files. At the last DEPLOY workshop (October 2009), several other options have been discussed to reduce this memory footprint. This issue is beging further investigated.
Available Documentation
The following pages give useful information about prover improvements:
- Prover Rules
- See http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/Inference_Rules.
- See http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/All_Rewrite_Rules.
- Proof Skeleton View
- Proof Purger
- Prover API evolution
- Versioned Reasoners
Planning
The above mentioned improvements were made available since release 1.1 of the platform:
In the third year of DEPLOY, most effort in the proving area will be put into:
- better management of well-definedness conditions,
- improvement to the rule based prover,
- bridging the gap with external SMT solvers,
- supporting mathematical extensions in proofs.
