Fred: An approach to generating real, correct, reusable programs from proofs

In this paper we describe our system for automatically extracting "correct" programs from proofs using a development of the Curry-Howard process. Although program extraction has been developed by many authors, our system has a number of novel features designed to make it very easy to use and as close as possible to ordinary mathematical terminology and practice. These features include 1. the use of Henkin's technique to reduce higher-order logic to many-sorted (first-order) logic; 2. the free use of new rules for induction subject to certain conditions; 3. the extensive use of previously programmed (total, recursive) functions; 4. the use of templates to make the reasoning much closer to normal mathematical proofs and 5. a conceptual distinction between the computational type theory (for representing programs)and the logical type theory (for reasoning about programs). As an example of our system we give a constructive proof of the well known theorem that every graph of even parity, which is non-trivial in the sense that it does not consist of isolated vertices, has a cycle. Given such a graph as input, the extracted program produces a cycle as promised.

Protocols between programs and proofs

In this paper we describe a new protocol that we call the Curry-Howard protocol between a theory and the programs extracted from it. This protocol leads to the expansion of the theory and the production of more powerful programs. The methodology we use for automatically extracting “correct” programs from proofs is a development of the well-known Curry-Howard process. Program extraction has been developed by many authors, but our presentation is ultimately aimed at a practical, usable system and has a number of novel features. These include 1. a very simple and natural mimicking of ordinary mathematical practice and likewise the use of established computer programs when we obtain programs from formal proofs, and 2. a conceptual distinction between programs on the one hand, and proofs of theorems that yield programs on the other. An implementation of our methodology is the Fred system. As an example of our protocol we describe a constructive proof of the well-known theorem that every graph of even parity can be decomposed into a list of disjoint cycles. Given such a graph as input, the extracted program produces a list of the (non-trivial) disjoint cycles as promised.

Extracting Causal Graphs from an Open Provenance Data Model

The open provenance architecture (OPA) approach to the challenge was distinct in several regards. In particular, it is based on an open, well-defined data model and architecture, allowing different components of the challenge workflow to independently record documentation, and for the workflow to be executed in any environment. Another noticeable feature is that we distinguish between the data recorded about what has occurred, emphprocess documentation, and the emphprovenance of a data item, which is all that caused the data item to be as it is and is obtained as the result of a query over process documentation. This distinction allows us to tailor the system to separately best address the requirements of recording and querying documentation. Other notable features include the explicit recording of causal relationships between both events and data items, an interaction-based world model, intensional definition of data items in queries rather than relying on explicit naming mechanisms, and emphstyling of documentation to support non-functional application requirements such as reducing storage costs or ensuring privacy of data. In this paper we describe how each of these features aid us in answering the challenge provenance queries.