Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Automated Formal Methods 2007
DOI: 10.1145/1345169.1345176
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lightweight integration of the Ergo theorem prover inside a proof assistant

Abstract: Ergo is a little engine of proof dedicated to program verification. It fully supports quantifiers and directly handles polymorphic sorts. Its core component is CC(X), a new combination scheme for the theory of uninterpreted symbols parameterized by a built-in theory X. In order to make a sound integration in a proof assistant possible, Ergo is capable of generating proof traces for CC(X). Alternatively, Ergo can also be called interactively as a simple oracle without further verification. It is currently used … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, we are especially interested in proving proof obligations from program verification, similar to AUFLIA and AU-FLIRA divisions of the SMT competition. Our experience with our own prover Alt-Ergo [5] is that these formulas' difficulty lies more in finding the pertinent hypotheses and lemmas' instances than in their propositional structure or the theory reasoning involved in their proofs. Consequently, these problems become rather easy as soon as we know which hypotheses and instances are sufficient for the proof.…”
Section: A Mixed Approach Based On Reflectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Indeed, we are especially interested in proving proof obligations from program verification, similar to AUFLIA and AU-FLIRA divisions of the SMT competition. Our experience with our own prover Alt-Ergo [5] is that these formulas' difficulty lies more in finding the pertinent hypotheses and lemmas' instances than in their propositional structure or the theory reasoning involved in their proofs. Consequently, these problems become rather easy as soon as we know which hypotheses and instances are sufficient for the proof.…”
Section: A Mixed Approach Based On Reflectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No result has been admitted and no axioms have been assumed, therefore proofs made with our tactics are closed under context. 5 Because our development is highly modular, the procedure can be instantiated to decide boolean formulas as well as propositional formulas. We benchmarked our tactic and the different CNF conversion methods on valid and unsatisfiable formulas described by Dyckhoff [17] ; for instance holen stands for the pigeon-hole formula with n holes.…”
Section: Benchmarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, work on integrating SMT solvers as decision procedures inside higher order logic provers include [12], [9], [4]. The main problem with these approaches is that proof generation is usually at least order of magnitude faster than proof checking inside higher order logic prover.…”
Section: Related and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main problem with these approaches is that proof generation is usually at least order of magnitude faster than proof checking inside higher order logic prover. The Ergo [4] paper mentions promising preliminary results with using proof traces instead of full proofs with Coq for theory conflicts. It is possible that using traces could also work for CNF conversion and skolemization.…”
Section: Related and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%