Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Survey on Theorem Provers in Formal Methods

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1912.03028 v1 pith:423KWHUK submitted 2019-12-06 cs.SE cs.FLcs.LO

classification cs.SEcs.FLcs.LO
keywords proverstheoremreasoningsystemsapplicationareascomprehensivedifferences
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Mechanical reasoning is a key area of research that lies at the crossroads of mathematical logic and artificial intelligence. The main aim to develop mechanical reasoning systems (also known as theorem provers) was to enable mathematicians to prove theorems by computer programs. However, these tools evolved with time and now play vital role in the modeling and reasoning about complex and large-scale systems, especially safety-critical systems. Technically, mathematical formalisms and automated reasoning based-approaches are employed to perform inferences and to generate proofs in theorem provers. In literature, there is a shortage of comprehensive documents that can provide proper guidance about the preferences of theorem provers with respect to their designs, performances, logical frameworks, strengths, differences and their application areas. In this work, more than 40 theorem provers are studied in detail and compared to present a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of these tools. Theorem provers are investigated based on various parameters, which includes: implementation architecture, logic and calculus used, library support, level of automation, programming paradigm, programming language, differences and application areas.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. StepProof: Step-by-step verification of natural language mathematical proofs

    cs.LO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Decomposing natural-language proofs into sentence-level formal subproofs improves autoformalization success rates and efficiency compared with whole-proof formalization.

Pith tools