Results 1 
6 of
6
A Taxonomy of Parallel Strategies for Deduction
 Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
, 1999
"... This paper presents a taxonomy of parallel theoremproving methods based on the control of search (e.g., masterslaves versus peer processes), the granularity of parallelism (e.g., fine, medium and coarse grain) and the nature of the method (e.g., orderingbased versus subgoalreduction) . We anal ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper presents a taxonomy of parallel theoremproving methods based on the control of search (e.g., masterslaves versus peer processes), the granularity of parallelism (e.g., fine, medium and coarse grain) and the nature of the method (e.g., orderingbased versus subgoalreduction) . We analyze how the di#erent approaches to parallelization a#ect the control of search: while fine and mediumgrain methods, as well as masterslaves methods, generally do not modify the sequential search plan, parallelsearch methods may combine sequential search plans (multisearch) or extend the search plan with the capability of subdividing the search space (distributed search). Precisely because the search plan is modified, the latter methods may produce radically di#erent searches than their sequential base, as exemplified by the first distributed proof of the Robbins theorem generated by the Modified ClauseDi#usion prover Peersmcd. An overview of the state of the field and directions...
Sharedmemory multiprocessing for interactive theorem proving
 Interactive Theorem Proving  4th International Conference, ITP 2013
"... Abstract. We address the multicore problem for interactive theorem proving, notably for Isabelle. The stagnation of CPU clock frequency since 2005 means that hardware manufactures multiply cores to keep up with “Moore’s Law”, but this imposes the burden of explicit parallelism to application develop ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We address the multicore problem for interactive theorem proving, notably for Isabelle. The stagnation of CPU clock frequency since 2005 means that hardware manufactures multiply cores to keep up with “Moore’s Law”, but this imposes the burden of explicit parallelism to application developers. To cope with this trend, Isabelle has started to support parallel theory and proof processing in 2007, and continuously improved the use of multicore hardware in recent years. This is of practical relevance to theory and proof development, since their size and complexity is roughly correlated with the real time required for rechecking. Scaling up the prover on parallel hardware will facilitate maintenance of larger theory libraries, for example. Our approach to parallel processing in Isabelle is mostly implicit, without user intervention. The system is able to exploit the inherent problemstructure of LCFstyle proof checking, although it requires substantial reforms of the prover architecture and its implementation. Thus the user gains significant speedup factors on typical commodity hardware with 2–32 cores; saturation of 8 cores is already routine in many applications. The present paper provides an overview of the current state of sharedmemory multiprocessing in Isabelle2013, which also benefits from recent improvements of parallel memory management in Poly/ML (by David Matthews). We discuss common requirements, problems, and solutions. Concrete performance figures are analyzed for some applications from the Isabelle distribution and the Archive of Formal Proofs (AFP).
Parallelizing an Interactive Theorem Prover: Functional Programming and Proofs with ACL2
, 2012
"... ..."
M.: A parallelized theorem prover for a logic with parallel execution
 In Blazy, S., PaulinMohring, C., Pichardie, D., eds.: Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP 2013). Volume ???? of LNCS
, 2013
"... Abstract. In order to take best advantage of modern multicore systems, interactive theorem provers need to parallelize execution effectively. We describe our modification to a particular theorem prover, ACL2, to use parallel execution automatically in its proof process. Since the ACL2 prover is wr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In order to take best advantage of modern multicore systems, interactive theorem provers need to parallelize execution effectively. We describe our modification to a particular theorem prover, ACL2, to use parallel execution automatically in its proof process. Since the ACL2 prover is written primarily in the ACL2 programming language, our approach to parallelization takes advantage of ACL2 language primitives for parallel execution. We demonstrate that the resulting system often provides earlier useful feedback from failed proofs and significant reduction of execution time for successful proofs. Thus, our system not only incorporates parallelism into its proof process, but it also provides a platform for writing and verifying parallel programs written in the ACL2 programming language.
A taxonomy of parallel strategies for deduction ∗
"... This paper presents a taxonomy of parallel theoremproving methods based on the control of search (e.g., masterslaves versus peer processes), the granularity of parallelism (e.g., fine, medium and coarse grain) and the nature of the method (e.g., orderingbased versus subgoalreduction). We analyze ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper presents a taxonomy of parallel theoremproving methods based on the control of search (e.g., masterslaves versus peer processes), the granularity of parallelism (e.g., fine, medium and coarse grain) and the nature of the method (e.g., orderingbased versus subgoalreduction). We analyze how the different approaches to parallelization affect the control of search: while fine and mediumgrain methods, as well as masterslaves methods, generally do not modify the sequential search plan, parallelsearch methods may combine sequential search plans (multisearch) or extend the search plan with the capability of subdividing the search space (distributed search). Precisely because the search plan is modified, the latter methods may produce radically different searches than their sequential base, as exemplified by the first distributed proof of the Robbins theorem generated by the Modified ClauseDiffusion prover Peersmcd. An overview of the state of the field and directions for future research conclude the paper. 1.