Task 1.2

Definition of Mathematical Service

Last updated: 1 October 2004 by Marco Bozzano

See also Node report and Task 3.4 report

Official Start and End

0-36th month.

Technical Objective

Task 1.2 is part of the Task 1 (Basic research). It is described in the Calculemus network proposal as follows:
"Definition of mathematical service. Modeling CAS and DSs as mathematical services. Identification of the architectural and functional requirements for turning CASs and DSs into open systems capable of using and/or delivering mathematical services."

Deliverables

There are two deliverables for Task 1.2:

Partner nodes

The sites and researchers involved in this task are:

ITC-IRST, Trento (Leader of the task):
Gilles Audemard (young visiting researcher from University of Provence, France)
Piergiorgio Bertoli (researcher)
Marco Bozzano (researcher)
Alessandro Cimatti (researcher)
Tommi Junttila (young visiting researcher from Helsinki University of Technology, Finland)
Gavin Keighren (young visiting researcher from University of Edumburgh, Scotland)
Veselin Kirov (young visiting researcher from Bulgaria)
Artur Kornilowicz, (young visiting researcher from University of Bialystok, Poland)
Roberto Sebastiani (assistant professor)
Stephan Schulz (young visiting researcher visiting IRST, from TU Muenchen)
Daniel Sheridan (young visiting researcher from University of Edimburgh)
Peter van Rossum (young visiting researcher from the Netherlands)

University of Saarland -- USAAR:
Christoph Benzmueller (assistant professor)
Jürgen Zimmer (PhD student)

University of Edinburgh -- UED:
Alan Bundy (professor)
Simon Colton (former research associate)
Jürgen Zimmer (young visiting researcher from USAAR)

University of Karlsruhe -- UKA:
Jacques Calmet (professor)

Research Institute for Symbolic Computation, University of Linz --- RISC:
Olga Caprotti
Wolfgang Windsteiger

University of Genova -- UNIGE:
Alessandro Armando (assistant professor)
Luca Compagna (PhD student)
Pasquale De Lucia (PhD Student)
Enrico Giunchiglia (Associate Professor)
Silvio Ranise (PhD student)
Sorin Stratulat (young visiting researcher from INRIA-Lorraine, Nancy, France)
Jürgen Zimmer (young visiting researcher from USAAR)

Active young visiting researchers in the task

Gilles Audemard (University of Provence). Young visiting researcher of IRST (Trento) from 1/11/01 to 31/8/02.

Gilles' work focused on the analysis, design and implementation of efficient algorithms that combine algebraic decision procedures (mathematical solving & computing services) and logical reasoning capabilities (proving services), with the main goal of automatically verifying timed systems. In particular, he took part to the requirement analysis, design and implementation of MathSAT [16], a system combining the (high-performances) boolean reasoning capabilities of the SAT procedure SIM with the mathematical solving capability of a home-made decision procedure for linear arithmetic formulas over the reals. He has taken in charge the development of the resulting system.
He contributed to the development of the general framework (logical foundations and basic algorithms) for combining boolean decision procedures and mathematical solvers, and to the definition of the main requirements that boolean and mathematical solvers must fulfill in order to achieve the maximum benefits from their integration [15]. To this extent, his contribution focused mainly on the requirements for boolean decision procedures.

Luca Compagna (University of Genova). Young visiting researcher of UED (Edinburgh) from 07/01 to 08/01.

Luca's work focussed on the design, development, and efficient integration of decision procedures in formula simplification. He has contributed to the development of the RDL theorem prover.

Artur Kornilowicz (University of Bialystok). Young visiting researcher of IRST (Trento) from 16/07/01 to 30/06/02.

Artur's work focused on the design and implementation of efficient algorithms that automatically establish the satisfiability of a specific class of mathematical formulae, which can be used to model timed systems. The algorithms are designed in order to closely integrate as a Math-Solver module of MathSAT [16]. He has taken in charge the development of the Math-Solver module.
He also contributed to the development of the general framework for combining boolean decision procedures and mathematical solvers, and to the definition of the main requirements that boolean and mathematical solvers must fulfill in order to achieve the maximum benefits from their integration [15]. To this extent, his contribution focused mainly on the requirements for mathematical solvers.

Silvio Ranise (University of Genova). Young visiting researcher of USAAR (Saarbruecken) from 11/01 to 12/01.

Silvio has actively participated in the definition of the control component of OMRS (Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems). Silvio's work focused also on the definition of Constraint Contextual Rewriting. He has contributed to the development of the RDL theorem prover.

Jürgen Zimmer (University of Saarlandes). Young visiting researcher of UNIGE (Genova) from 01/01/01 to 09/07/01. Young visiting researcher of UED (Edinburgh) from 1/10/01 to 31/3/02.

Jürgen's work focused on the investigation of a possible use of the work done in the Semantic Web Community and in the Distributed AI community for the purpose of describing reasoning services. During his stay as a YVR in Edinburgh, Jürgen Zimmer investigated a possible use of the Web Service Description Language (WSDL) developed by the semantic web community, and agent capability description languages, such as the LARKS specification language and DAML+OIL for the specification of mathematical services. It turned out that WSDL is only suitable for describing interfaces of web services but not the semantics of a service. The specification language LARKS, however, combines a high expressivity with the ability to reason about service specifications. Further information can be found on the MathWeb site.

Daniel Sheridan  (School of Informatics, University of Edumburgh). Young visiting researcher of IRST (Trento) from 13/2/03 to 6/4/03.

Daniel's work focussed in improved bounded model checking encodings, by reasoning about temporal logic as well as the problem domain in general, in particular the use of techniques from temporal logic theorem proving; and generally increasing the applicability of bounded model checking. His work at ITC-IRST was concerned with both the symbolic and bounded model checking aspects of the NuSMV model checker: improving the behaviour of the system on non-Boolean data types and integrating the improved encoding routines that were the results of his research.

Veselin Kirov 
(Bulgaria). Young visiting researcher of IRST (Trento) from 1/6/03 to 31/10/03 and from 1/3/04 to 30/4/04.

Stephan Schulz  (TU Muenchen). Young visiting researcher at RISC, visiting IRST (Trento) from 7/1/2004 to 26/3/04.
Stephan worked on four main topics during his CALCULEMUS stay: Communication protocols for reasoning systems, improvements for first-order deduction systems, automated domain exploration, and decision procedures for fragments of first order logic. Most of his work at ICT/irst was on the last topic. He developed and implemented a robust and efficient congruence closure algorithm that forms the equational solver of the latest version of MathSat. The system makes MathSat into an efficient decision procedure for the logic of equality with uninterpreted function symbols (EUF) and plays an important role in reasoning about other theories. In fall 2003, Stephan attended the Fourth International Workshop on the Implementation of Logics (as an invited speaker) and LPAR-2004. In summer 2004, he presented a number of results obtained during his CALCULEMUS work at IJCAR-2004 and the IJCAR-Workshop on Empirically Successful First-Order Reasoning. He published the papers [28,29,30,31].
Tommi Junttila  (Helsinki University of Technology, Finland). Young visiting researcher of IRST (Trento) from 15/1/04 to 31/8/04.
Tommi's work focused on the analysis, design and implementation of efficient algorithms that combine algebraic decision procedures (mathematical solving) and logical reasoning capabilities (proving services).  In particular, he took part to the requirement analysis, design and implementation of the new version of MathSAT [2], a system combining the (high-performance) boolean reasoning capabilities with the mathematical solving capability. His main contributions were the designing and implementing the top-level solver module and the preprocessor for non-clausal formulae in the new version of the MathSAT solver. The top-level solver extends the Minisat Boolean satisfiability checker developed at Chalmers University by interfacing it with the data structures representing non-Boolean formulae and with theory specific solvers such as one for the theory of equality with uninterpreted functions and one for linear and non-linear arithmetics. The preprocessor for non-clausal formulae enables one to use more natural and compact form for describing problems. The formulae are then translated to the special conjunctive normal form accepted by the top-level solver by a series of satisfiability preserving steps. In addition, he has contributed to the bounded model checker module of the NuSMV symbolic model checker. He has improved the Boolean circuit package in NuSMV so that it now produces more compact representations of problems. Furthermore, he has designed and implemented a module for incremental satisfiability checking in NuSMV. Based on this module, he has implemented the temporal induction algorithms described by Een and Sorensen in [23] and integrated incremental SAT solving also to bounded model checking of linear time temporal properties. During his stay in Trento he has participated in two conferences, the International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2004) in Hamilton, Canada, June 2004 and 25th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets (ATPN 2004) in Bologna, Italy, June 2004. In these conferences, he presented new results concerning the symmetry reduction method for explicit state space anylysis obtained prior to the visit at IRST. The presented papers are [24][25] The conference trips were funded by IRST through the CALCULEMUS project.
Peter van Rossum  (The Netherlands). Young visiting researcher of IRST (Trento) from 15/1/04 to 31/8/04.

Gavin Keighren (University of Edumburgh). Young visiting researcher at IRST (Trento) from 1/3/04 to 31/8/04.
The focus of his work has been towards the constant improvement of the model checker NuSMV. Initially this involved working on increasing the functionality provided by the program, by means of allowing input files to be automatically run through external preprocessors. He also made the modifications necessary to integrate the improved RBC encodings which Tommi Junttila had provided. He has been involved in the revision of the user-manual and tutorial to reflect the changes made to NuSMV. The other main area of his work has been to investigate the boolean encoding methods used by NuSMV, with the aim of improving the solution times for SAT-based bounded model checking. Primarily, it has focused on reducing the  size of the formula which is passed to the external SAT solver. He has also been involved in the testing and benchmarking of the new incremental algorithms which have been added to the latest version of NuSMV.

Network task forces meeting (Genova, 14-15 February 2002)

The following presentations were given:

Report of the network meeting

Roberto Sebastiani chaired the session.

University of Genova, represented by Alessandro Armando, presented the OMRS (Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems) specification framework. An OMRS specification consists of three components: the logic component, the control component, and the interaction component. In this talk, Alessandro Armando focused on the control level and proposes to specify the control component by first adding control knowledge to the data structures representing the logic by means of annotations, and then by specifying proof strategies via tactics. To show the adequacy of the approach he presents and discusses a structured specification of the top-level inference strategy of NQTHM as a set of cooperating specialized reasoning modules (see [5,8]).
The slides of the presentation are available here.

RISC, represented by Wolfgang Windsteiger, proposes the following definition of a service: a service is a set of implementations running on a particular machine. An implementation is a particular realization of an algorithm as executable software, possibly with additional constraints on the input and additional possibilities for the output.
In this view (see [6,7]) , Mathematical Services can be subdivided into "Proving Services", "Solving Services", or "Computing Services". The process of developing mathematical theories usually requires a great deal of interaction between "Proving", "Solving", and "Computing". Therefore, in a computer-supported mathematical environment, the support of communication and interaction between these categories of mathematical services is indispensable for tackling "real problems in mathematics". The interaction between "Proving", "Solving", and "Computing" may take place on at least two levels, called "coarse grain interaction" and "fine grain interaction". An example of coarsely grained interaction can be seen when, during the development of a mathematical theory, one has to prove theorems. An example of finely grained interaction can be seen when, during a proof, it becomes necessary to simplify expressions by computation or to find instances of quantified formulae by solving.

RISC, represented by Olga Caprotti, presents the MathBroker, a framework for brokering mathematical services distributed among networked servers. MathBroker's mathematical service description language extends WSDL, the web service description language. Servers register their problem solving capabilities, expressed in this language, to a ``semantic broker''. Clients submit corresponding task descriptions to the semantic broker. The broker (in cooperation with a deduction system) determines the suitable services and returns them to the client for invocation. This mechanism thus hides from the client the actual implementation of mathematical services and focuses on the semantical aspects.
The slides of the presentation are available here.

USAAR, represented by Jürgen Zimmer, presents an ongoing work on formal description of reasoning services. Reasoning service descriptions are crucial for the MathWeb-SB in two ways: for the online access of reasoning services and for a further agentification of the MathWeb-SB. USAAR is investigating a possible use of the work done in the Semantic Web Community and in the Distributed AI community for their purposes. In the talk, Jürgen Zimmer presented the capability description language LARKS and described how reasoning services could be described using LARKS.
This work on the description of reasoning services (Mathematical Services) addresses the first two points of the task specification. The capability description language LARKS offers the means to describe the semantics of a service. The description of the actual functionality of a service (besides the specification of the input and output parameters) is crucial for efficient brokering of services and matchmaking between service advertisements and requests. USAAR tried to model the CAS Maple and the DS Lambda-Clam as Mathematical Services using the description language LARKS with their own ontology. It turned out that modeling DSs is much easier than modeling CASs because the problem solving knowledge of DSs is represented more explicitely while CASs do not allow external access to the knowledge embedded in their algorithms.
The slides of the presentation are available here.

University of Genova, represented by Alessandro Armando, presents a work focusing on effective integration of decision procedures in formula simplification, a fundamental problem in mechanical verification. They address the problem by proposing a general pattern of interaction between rewriting and decision procedures and by providing an account of such a pattern of interaction which is precise and concise at the same time. The first step amounts to a generalization of contextual rewriting which allows the available decision procedure to access and manipulate the rewriting context. They call this generalized form of contextual rewriting Constraint Contextual Rewriting (CCR for short). The second step amounts to providing a rule-based presentation of CCR which is modular, declarative, and formal at the same time. This allows them to give a rigorous account of CCR and to formally state and prove its soundness and termination (see [2,4]).
As deliverables they propose:

The slides of the presentation are available here.

IRST, represented by Roberto Sebastiani, presents the mathematical and logical foundations and basic algorithms for integrating boolean reasoning and mathematical solving services (see [1]). Algorithms are based on the DPLL algorithm, which is extended by mathematical reasoner. The paper regards the satisfiability of math-formulae, i.e., a boolean combination of propositional variables and linear mathematical relations over real variables. It specifies mandatory requirements (termination, correctness, completness) and efficiency requirements (time efficiency, polynomial memory, ability to produce failure information (conflict sets), ability to produce and to propagate success information (consequence of previous reasoning), incrementality) for such services.
The slides of the presentation are available here.

At the end of session a brainstorming over Task 1.2 took place; the following issues have been raised:

Systems, software, or approaches

Publications and References


1
R. Sebastiani.
Integrating SAT Solvers with Math Reasoners: Foundations and Basic Algorithms.
ITC-IRST Technical report 0111-22. November 2001.
2
A. Armando and C. Ballarin.
Maple's Evaluation Process as Constraint Contextual Rewriting.
In the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (ISSAC'2001). July 22 - 25, 2001, ORCCA and University of Western Ontario.
3
A. Armando, L. Compagna and S. Ranise.
System Description: RDL---Rewrite and Decision procedure Laboratory
In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), June 18-23, 2001, Siena, Italy. © Springer-Verlag
4
A. Armando and S. Ranise.
Constraint Contextual Rewriting
To appear on the Journal of Symbolic Computation. Special on FTP 2000, International Workshop on First-Order Theorem Proving. Peter Baumgartner and Hantao Zhang, Editors.
5
A. Armando, A. Coglio, F. Giunchiglia and S. Ranise.
The Control Layer in Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems: Annotations and Tactics.
Journal of Symbolic Computation, Vol 32, No 4, Oct. 2001.
6
B. Buchberger.
Computer-Assisted Proving by the PCS-Method.
Proceedings of the Symposium "Constructive Algebra", Amsterdam, November 1-3, 2000, LNCS © Springer Verlag.
7
B. Buchberger.
Theorema: Proving, Solving, Computing.
Invited talk in Workspop "Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning". Schloss Dagstuhl, July 28 - August 1, 1997.
8
A. Armando, M. Kohlhase and S. Ranise.
Communication Protocols for Mathematical Services based on KQML and OMRS.
In Symbolic Computation and Automated Reasoning. Proceedings of the Eight Symposium on the Integration of Symbolic Computation and Mechanized Reasoning (CALCULEMUS 2000), St. Andrew (Scotland), August 6-7, 2000. M. Kerber and M. Kohlhase, editors, pag. 33-48. A K Peters Publisher, Natick, Massachussetts, 2001.
9
A. Armando and D. Zini.
Towards Interoperable Mechanized Reasoning Systems: the Logic Broker Architecture .
In the Proceedings of the AI*IA-TABOO Joint Workshop `Dagli Oggetti agli Agenti: Tendenze Evolutive dei Sistemi Software'. Parma, Italy. May 29-30, 2000, pages 70-75. Reprinted in AI*IA Notizie Anno XIII (2000) vol. 3.
10
A. Armando and D. Zini.
Interfacing Computer Algebra and Deduction Systems via the Logic Broker Architecture.
In Symbolic Computation and Automated Reasoning, proceedings of the Eight Symposium on the Integration of Symbolic Computation and Mechanized Reasoning (CALCULEMUS 2000), St. Andrew (Scotland), August 6-7, 2000. M. Kerber and M. Kohlhase, editors, pag. 49-64. A K Peters Publisher, Natick, Massachussetts, 2001.
11
J. Zimmer, A. Armando andC. Giromini.
Towards Mathematical Agents -- Combining MathWeb-SB and LBA.
In the Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on the Integration of Symbolic Computation and Mechanized Reasoning (CALCULEMUS 2001). Siena, June 21-22, 2001, pages 64-77
12
A. Armando and S. Ranise.
A Practical Extension Mechanism for Decision Procedures: the Case Study of Universal Presburger Arithmetic.
In the Journal of Universal Computer Science vol. 7:2, pages 124-140, 2001.
13
A. Armando, S. Ranise and M. Rusinowitch.
Uniform Derivation of Decision Procedures by Superposition.
In the Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL01), Paris, France, September 10-13, 2001, pages 513-527.
14
A. Armando, S. Ranise and M. Rusinowitch.
A Superposition Based Methodology to Design Satisfiability Decision Procedures.
In the Proceedings on the 5th International Workshop on Unification (UNIF'2001), Siena, Italy, June 18-19, 2001, pages 8-12.
15
G. Audemard, P.Bertoli, A. Cimatti, A.Kornilowicz and R. Sebastiani.
Integrating Boolean and Mathematical Solving: Foundations, Basic Algorithms and Requirements.
In Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Computation. Proc. of Joint AISC 2002 and CALCULEMUS 2002. Marseille, France, July 1-5, 2002. LNAI N.2385 © Springer Verlag.
16
G. Audemard, P.Bertoli, A. Cimatti, A.Kornilowicz and R. Sebastiani.
A SAT Based Approach for Solving Formulas over Boolean and Linear Mathematical Propositions.
In Proc. 18th Int. Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-18), part of Federated Logic Conference (FLoC'02). Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2002. LNAI N.2392 © Springer Verlag.
17
G. Audemard, A. Cimatti, A. Kornilowicz and R. Sebastiani.
Bounded Model Checking for Timed Systems.
In Proc. 22nd Joint International Conference on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems (FORTE 2002). Houston, TX, USA, November 2002. LNCS © Springer Verlag (to appear).
18
F. Giunchiglia, R. Sebastiani and P. Traverso.
Integrating SAT solvers with domain-specific reasoners.
In Proc. 8th Symposium on the Integration of Symbolic Computation and Mechanized Reasoning (CALCULEMUS 2000). St. Andrews, Scotland, UK, August 2000. © A.K. Peters Eds.
19
A. Armando, L. Compagna and S. Ranise.
Rewrite and Decision Procedure Laboratory: Combining Rewriting, Satisfiability Checking, and Lemma Speculation.
In Festschrift in Honor of Jörg H. Siekmann. To appear in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, © Springer Verlag.
20
A. Armando, C. Castellini, E. Giunchiglia, F. Giunchiglia and A. Tacchella.
SAT-Based Decision Procedures for Automated Reasoning: a Unifying Perspective.
In Festschrift in Honor of Jörg H. Siekmann. To appear in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, © Springer Verlag.
21
J. Zimmer and L. Dennis.
Inductive Theorem Proving and Computer Algebra in the MathWeb Software Bus.
Proc. of Joint AISC 2002 and CALCULEMUS 2002. Marseille, France, July 1-5, 2002. LNAI N.2385 © Springer Verlag.
22
J. Zimmer, A. Franke, S. Colton and G. Sutcliffe.
Integrating HR and tptp2X into MathWeb to Compare Automated Theorem Provers.
In Proceedings of the PaPS'02 Workshop of the 18th International Conference on Automated Deduction. July 2002.
23
Niklas Eén and Niklas Sörensson.
Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving.
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 89(4).
Elsevier, 2004.
24
Tommi Junttila.
New Orbit Algorithms for Data Symmetries.
In "Proc. Application of Concurrency to System Design 2004", pages 175-184.
IEEE, 2004.

25
Tommi Junttila.
New Canonical Representative Marking Algorithms for Place/Transition-Nets.
In "Proc. Application and Theory of Petri Nets 2004", pages 258-277.
LNCS 3099. Springer, 2004.

26
G. Audemard, M.Bozzano, A.Cimatti and R.Sebastiani.
Verifying Industrial Hybrid Systems with MathSat.
In Proc. PDPAR 2003. Miami, Florida, July 29, 2003.


27
M.Bozzano, A.Cimatti, G.Colombini, V.Kirov and R.Sebastiani.
The MathSat solver -- a progress report.
In Proc. PDPAR 2004, Cork, Ireland, July 5, 2004.

28
S. Sutcliffe and S. Schulz and T. Tammet (eds).
Proceedings of the IJCAR Workshop on Empirically Successful First Order Reasoning (ESFOR-2004), Cork, Ireland.
ENTCS, Elsevier Science, 2004.

29
S. Sutcliffe and J. Zimmer and S. Schulz.
TSTP Data-Exchange Formats for Automated Theorem Proving Tools.
in V. Sorge and W. Zhang (eds.): Distributed and Multi-Agent Reasoning, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Application.
IOS Press, 2004. 

30
S. Schulz.
System Description: E 0.81.
In D. Basin and M. Rusinowitch (eds.): Proc. of the 2nd IJCAR, Cork, Ireland.
LNAI 3097, Springer, 2004.

31
S. Schulz.
Simple and Efficient Clause Subsumption with Feature Vector Indexing.
In G. Sutcliffe and S. Schulz and T. Tammet (eds.): Proc. of the IJCAR-2004 Workshop on Empirically Successful First-Order Theorem Proving, Cork, Ireland.
ENTCS, Elsevier Science, 2004.