Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before

I argue that the most interesting goal facing researchers in automated reasoning is being able to solve problems that cannot currently be solved by existing tools and methods. This may appear obvious, and is clearly not an original thought, but focusing on this as a primary goal allows us to examine other goals in a new light. Many successful theorem provers employ a portfolio of different methods for solving problems. This changes the landscape on which we perform our research: solving problems that can already be solved may not improve the state of the art and a method that can solve a handful of problems unsolvable by current methods, but generally performs poorly on most problems, can be very useful. We acknowledge that forcing new methods to compete against portfolio solvers can stifle innovation. However, this is only the case when comparisons are made at the level of total problems solved. We propose a movement towards focussing on unique solutions in evaluation and competitions i.e. measuring the potential contribution to a portfolio solver. This state of affairs is particularly prominent in first-order logic, which is undecidable. When reasoning in a decidable logic there can be a focus on optimising a decision procedure and measuring average solving times. But in a setting where solutions are difficult to find, average solving times lose meaning, and whilst improving the efficiency of a technique can move potential solutions within acceptable time limits, in general, complementary strategies may be more successful.

Selecting the Selection

Modern saturation-based Automated Theorem Provers typically implement the superposition calculus for reasoning about first-order logic with or without equality. Practical implementations of this calculus use a variety of literal selections and term orderings to tame the growth of the search space and help steer proof search. This paper introduces the notion of lookahead selection that estimates (looks ahead) the effect on the search space of selecting a literal. There is also a case made for the use of incomplete selection functions that attempt to restrict the search space instead of satisfying some completeness criteria. Experimental evaluation in the \Vampire\ theorem prover shows that both lookahead selection and incomplete selection significantly contribute to solving hard problems unsolvable by other methods.