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.

Towards Qualitative Approaches to Bayesian Evidential Reasoning

A crucial aspect of evidential reasoning in crime investigation involves comparing the support that evidence provides for alternative hypotheses. Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be employed for this purpose. However, the specification of BNs requires conditional probability tables describing the uncertain processes under evaluation. When these processes are poorly understood, it is necessary to rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Accurate probabilities of this type are normally hard to acquire from experts. Recent work in qualitative reasoning has developed methods to perform probabilistic reasoning using coarser representations. However, the latter types of approaches are too imprecise to compare the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This paper examines this shortcoming of the qualitative approaches when applied to the aforementioned problem, and identifies and integrates techniques to refine them.

On Qualitative Probabilities for Legal Reasoning about Evidence

A crucial aspect of evidential reasoning in crime investigation involves comparing the support that evidence provides for alternative hypotheses. Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be employed for this purpose. However, the specification of BNs requires conditional probability tables describing the uncertain processes under evaluation. When these processes are poorly understood, it is necessary to rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Accurate probabilities of this type are normally hard to acquire from experts. Recent work in qualitative reasoning has developed methods to perform probabilistic reasoning using coarser representations. However, the latter types of approaches are too imprecise to compare the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This paper examines this shortcoming of the qualitative approaches when applied to the aforementioned problem, and identifies and integrates techniques to refine them.

Reasoning about Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. These inconsistencies cannot always be resolved immediately. As a result, we argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process. Clustered belief revision allows for the grouping of requirements with similar functionality into clusters and the assignment of priorities between them. By analysing the result of a cluster, an engineer can either choose to rectify problems in the specification or to postpone the changes until more information becomes available.