The CADE-26 automated theorem proving system competition – CASC-26

Sutcliffe, Geoff

doi:10.3233/aic-170744

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problems from the FOF divisions of CASC-22 [18], CASC-J5 [19], CASC-23 [20] and CASC-J6 and CASC@Turing [21] were used as training problems. Several problems appeared in more than one CASC.…”

Section: The Training Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

MaLeS: A Framework for Automatic Tuning of Automated Theorem Provers

Kühlwein

Urban

2015

J Autom Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MaLeS is an automatic tuning framework for automated theorem provers. It provides solutions for both the strategy finding as well as the strategy scheduling problem. This paper describes the tool and the methods used in it, and evaluates its performance on three automated theorem provers: E, LEO-II and Satallax. On a representative subset of the TPTP library a MaLeS-tuned prover solves on average 8.67 % more problems than the prover with its default settings.

show abstract

Section: The Training Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

MaLeS: A Framework for Automatic Tuning of Automated Theorem Provers

Kühlwein

Urban

2015

J Autom Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The usage of signed formulae allows an elegant and uniform representation of the rules of the tableau calculus. The α-rules add formulae to a branch of a derivation, and the β-rules split a branch of the derivation [14] [12,24])). cnf(26,plain,(~big_q(X1)),inference(csr,[], [9,21])).…”

Section: Representing Derivations In the Tableau Calculusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The writing of derivations in resolution calculi is well documented and specified [25]. At the last CADE system competition, CASC-22 [24], three of the five ATP systems that output proofs in the core FOF division use the TPTP syntax. All three of those systems produce proofs that are based on resolution calculi.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the TPTP Language for Representing Derivations in Tableau and Connection Calculi

Otten

Sutcliffe

EPiC Series in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The TPTP language, developed within the framework of the TPTP library, allows the representation of problems and solutions in first-order and higher-order logic. Whereas the writing of solutions in resolution calculi is well documented and used, an appropriate representation of solutions in tableau or connection calculi using the TPTP syntax has not yet been specified. This paper describes how the TPTP language can be used to represent derivations and solutions in standard tableau, sequent and connection calculi for classical first-order logic.

show abstract

“…iProver is a general purpose theorem prover for first-order logic which incorporates SAT solvers at its core (currently, MiniSAT [33] and optionally PicoSAT [34]). iProver is particularly efficient in the EPR fragment [35]. We implemented UCM-based algorithms, presented as Algorithms 1 and 2, in out system.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

EPR-based k-induction with Counterexample Guided Abstraction Refinement

Khasidashvili¹,

Korovin²,

Tsarkov³

EPiC Series in Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years it was proposed to encode bounded model checking (BMC) into the effectively propositional fragment of first-order logic (EPR). The EPR fragment can provide for a succinct representation of the problem and facilitate reasoning at a higher level. In this paper we present an extension of the EPR-based bounded model checking with k-induction which can be used to prove safety properties of systems over unbounded runs. We present a novel abstraction-refinement approach based on unsatisfiable cores and models (UCM) for BMC and k-induction in the EPR setting. We have implemented UCM refinements for EPR-based BMC and k-induction in a first-order automated theorem prover iProver. We also extended iProver with the AIGER format and evaluated it over the HWMCC'14 competition benchmarks. The experimental results are encouraging. We show that a number of AIG problems can be verified until deeper bounds with the EPR-based model checking.

show abstract

The CADE-26 automated theorem proving system competition – CASC-26

Cited by 20 publications

References 33 publications

MaLeS: A Framework for Automatic Tuning of Automated Theorem Provers

MaLeS: A Framework for Automatic Tuning of Automated Theorem Provers

Using the TPTP Language for Representing Derivations in Tableau and Connection Calculi

EPR-based k-induction with Counterexample Guided Abstraction Refinement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About