Discussion
Loading...

#Tag

  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Alan Zimmerman boosted
carlostomas49
@carlostomas49@scicomm.xyz  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

Formal verification — (machines constructing and checking mathematical proofs) — keeps getting better. Cobblestone ( @TaliaRinger https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19940
) and other divide-and-conquer approaches now automate proofs we once thought unreachable.

But something feels different about where this is heading.

As we push automation forward, we’re starting to touch the edges of what a “proof” actually is — not just a verified computation, but a statement about what can’t be opposed.

I’m not sure the field has fully realized how close we’re getting to an ontological shift in what counts as proof itself.

#ProofTheory #FormalVerification #AI #Logic #SciComm

arXiv.org

Cobblestone: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Automating Formal Verification

Formal verification using proof assistants, such as Coq, is an effective way of improving software quality, but requires significant effort and expertise. Machine learning can automatically synthesize proofs, but such tools are able to prove only a fraction of desired software properties. We introduce Cobblestone, a divide-and-conquer approach for proof synthesis. Cobblestone uses a large language model (LLM) to generate potential proofs, uses those proofs to break the problem into simpler parts, automatically identifies which of those parts were successfully proven, and iterates on the remaining parts to build a correct proof that is guaranteed to be sound, despite the reliance on unsound LLMs. We evaluate Cobblestone on four benchmarks of open-source Coq projects, controlling for training data leakage. Fully automatically, Cobblestone outperforms state-of-the-art non-LLM tools, and proves many theorems that other LLM-based tools cannot, and on many benchmarks, outperforms them. Each Cobblestone run costs only $1.25 and takes 14.7 minutes, on average. Cobblestone can also be used with external input, from a user or another tool, providing a proof structure or relevant lemmas. Evaluated with such an oracle, Cobblestone proves up to 58% of theorems. Overall, our research shows that tools can make use of partial progress and external input to more effectively automate formal verification.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
carlostomas49
@carlostomas49@scicomm.xyz  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

Formal verification — (machines constructing and checking mathematical proofs) — keeps getting better. Cobblestone ( @TaliaRinger https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19940
) and other divide-and-conquer approaches now automate proofs we once thought unreachable.

But something feels different about where this is heading.

As we push automation forward, we’re starting to touch the edges of what a “proof” actually is — not just a verified computation, but a statement about what can’t be opposed.

I’m not sure the field has fully realized how close we’re getting to an ontological shift in what counts as proof itself.

#ProofTheory #FormalVerification #AI #Logic #SciComm

arXiv.org

Cobblestone: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Automating Formal Verification

Formal verification using proof assistants, such as Coq, is an effective way of improving software quality, but requires significant effort and expertise. Machine learning can automatically synthesize proofs, but such tools are able to prove only a fraction of desired software properties. We introduce Cobblestone, a divide-and-conquer approach for proof synthesis. Cobblestone uses a large language model (LLM) to generate potential proofs, uses those proofs to break the problem into simpler parts, automatically identifies which of those parts were successfully proven, and iterates on the remaining parts to build a correct proof that is guaranteed to be sound, despite the reliance on unsound LLMs. We evaluate Cobblestone on four benchmarks of open-source Coq projects, controlling for training data leakage. Fully automatically, Cobblestone outperforms state-of-the-art non-LLM tools, and proves many theorems that other LLM-based tools cannot, and on many benchmarks, outperforms them. Each Cobblestone run costs only $1.25 and takes 14.7 minutes, on average. Cobblestone can also be used with external input, from a user or another tool, providing a proof structure or relevant lemmas. Evaluated with such an oracle, Cobblestone proves up to 58% of theorems. Overall, our research shows that tools can make use of partial progress and external input to more effectively automate formal verification.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Log in

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.0-rc.3.21 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct
Home
Login