Concurrent separation logic has been responsible for major advances in the formal verification of fine-grained concurrent algorithms and data structures such as locks, barriers, queues, and reference counters. The key ingredient of the verification of a fine-grained program is an invariant, which relates the physical data representation (on the heap) to a logical representation (in mathematics) and to the state of the threads (using a form of ghost state). An invariant is typically represented as a disjunction of logical states, but this disjunctive nature makes invariants a difficult target for automated verification. Current approaches roughly suffer from two problems. They use backtracking to introduce disjunctions in an uninformed manner, which can lead to unprovable goals if an appropriate case analysis has not been made before choosing the disjunct. Moreover, they eliminate disjunctions too eagerly, which can cause poor efficiency. While disjunctions are no problem for automated provers based on classical (i.e., non-separating) logic, the challenges with disjunctions are prominent in the study of proof automation for intuitionistic logic. We take inspiration from that area—specifically, based on ideas from connection calculus , we design a simple multi-succedent calculus for separation logic with disjunctions featuring a novel concept of a connection . While our calculus is not complete, it has the advantage that it can be extended with features of the state-of-the-art concurrent separation logic Iris (such as modalities, higher-order quantification, ghost state, and invariants), and can be implemented effectively in the Coq proof assistant with little need for backtracking. We evaluate the practicality on 24 challenging benchmarks, 14 of which we can verify fully automatically.

We introduce two coinduction principles and two proof translations which, under certain conditions, map coinductive proofs that use our principles to guarded Coq proofs. The first principle provides an "operational" description of a proof by coinduction, which is easy to reason with informally. The second principle extends the first one to allow for direct proofs by coinduction of statements with existential quantifiers and multiple coinductive predicates in the conclusion. The principles automatically enforce the correct use of the coinductive hypothesis. We implemented the principles and the proof translations in a Coq plugin.

Hammers provide most powerful general purpose automation for proof assistants based on HOL and set theory today. Despite the gaining popularity of the more advanced versions of type theory, such as those based on the Calculus of Inductive Constructions, the construction of hammers for such foundations has been hindered so far by the lack of translation and reconstruction components. In this paper, we present an architecture of a full hammer for dependent type theory together with its implementation for the Coq proof assistant. A key component of the hammer is a proposed translation from the Calculus of Inductive Constructions, with certain extensions introduced by Coq, to untyped first-order logic. The translation is "sufficiently" sound and complete to be of practical use for automated theorem provers. We also introduce a proof reconstruction mechanism based on an eauto-type algorithm combined with limited rewriting, congruence closure and some forward reasoning. The algorithm is able to re-prove in the Coq logic most of the theorems established by the ATPs. Together with machine-learning based selection of relevant premises this constitutes a full hammer system. The performance of the whole procedure is evaluated in a bootstrapping scenario emulating the development of the Coq standard library. For each theorem in the library only the previous theorems and proofs can be used. We show that 40.8% of the theorems can be proved in a push-button mode in about 40 s of real time on a 8-CPU system.

Hammers are tools for employing external automated theorem provers (ATPs) to improve automation in formal proof assistants. Strong automation can greatly ease the task of developing formal proofs. An essential component of any hammer is the translation of the logic of a proof assistant to the format of an ATP. For- malisms of state-of-the-art ATPs are usually first-order, so some method for eliminating lambda-abstractions is needed. We present an experimental comparison of several combinatory abstraction al- gorithms for HOL(y)Hammer – a hammer for HOL Light. The al- gorithms are compared on problems involving non-trivial lambda- abstractions selected from the HOL Light core library and a library for multivariate analysis. We succeeded in developing algorithms which outperform both lambda-lifting and the simple Scho ̈nfinkel’s algorithm used in Sledgehammer for Isabelle/HOL. This increases the ATPs’ success rate on translated problems, thus enhancing au- tomation in proof assistants.

Abstract We show a model construction for a system of higher-order illative combinatory logic thus establishing its strong consistency. We also use a variant of this construction to provide a complete embedding of first-order intuitionistic predicate logic with second-order propositional quantifiers into the system of Barendregt, Bunder and Dekkers, which gives a partial answer to a question posed by these authors.