1 Introduction
Computerunderstandable (formal) mathematics [Harrison, Urban, and Wiedijk2014] is still far from taking over the mathematical mainstream. Despite recent impressive formalizations such as the Formal Proof of the Kepler conjecture (Flyspeck) [Hales et al.2015], FeitThompson [Gonthier et al.2013], seL4 [Klein et al.2010], CompCert [Leroy2009], and CCL [Bancerek and Rudnicki2002], formalizing proofs is still largely unappealing to mathematicians. While research on AI and strong automation over large theories has taken off in the last decade [Blanchette et al.2016], there has been so far little progress in automating the understanding of informal LaTeXwritten and ambiguous mathematical writings.
Automatic parsing of informal mathematical texts into formal ones has been for long time considered a hard or impossible task. Among the stateoftheart Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) systems such as HOL (Light) [Harrison1996], Isabelle [Wenzel, Paulson, and Nipkow2008], Mizar [Grabowski, Korniłowicz, and Naumowicz2010] and Coq [coq], none includes automated parsing, instead relying on sophisticated formal languages and mechanisms [Garillot et al.2009, Gonthier and Tassi2012, Haftmann and Wenzel2006, Rudnicki, Schwarzweller, and Trybulec2001]. The past work in this direction – most notably by Zinn [Zinn2004] – has often been cited as discouraging from such efforts.
Recently [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b] proposed to automatically learn formal understanding of informal mathematics from large aligned informal/formal corpora. Such learning can be additionally combined with strong semantic filtering methods such as typechecking and largetheory Automated Theorem Proving (ATP). Suitable aligned corpora are starting to appear today, the major example being the Flyspeck project and in particular its alignment (by Hales) with the detailed informal Blueprint for Formal Proofs [Hales2012].
Contributions
In this paper, we first introduce the informaltoformal setting (Sec. 2), summarize the probabilistic contextfree grammar (PCFG) approach of [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b] (Sec. 3), and extend this approach by fast contextaware parsing mechanisms.

Limits of the contextfree approach. We demonstrate on a minimal example, that the contextfree setting is not strong enough to eventually learn correct parsing (Sec. 4) of relatively simple informal mathematical formulas.

Efficient context inclusion via discrimination trees.
We propose and efficiently implement modifications of the CYK algorithm that take into account larger parsing subtrees (context) and their probabilities (Sec.
5). This modification is motivated by an analogy with largetheory reasoning systems and its efficient implementation is based on a novel use of fast theoremproving data structures that extend the probabilistic parser. 
Significant improvement of the informaltoformal translation performance
. The methods are evaluated, both by standard (nonsemantic) machinelearning crossvalidation, and by strong semantic methods available in formal mathematics such as typechecking and largetheory automated reasoning (Sec.
6).
2 Informalized Flyspeck and PCFG
The ultimate goal of the informaltoformal traslation is to automatically learn parsing on informal LaTeX formulas that have been aligned with their formal counterparts, as for example done by Hales for his informal and formal Flyspeck texts [Hales2012, Tankink et al.2013]. Instead of starting with LaTeX where only hundreds of aligned examples are so far available for Flyspeck, we reuse the first large informal/formal corpus introduced in [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b], based on informalized (or ambiguated) formal statements created from the HOL Light theorems in Flyspeck. This provides about 22000 informal/formal pairs of Flyspeck theorems.
Informalized Flyspeck
The following transformations are applied in [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b] to the HOL parse trees to obtain the aligned corpus:

Using the 72 overloaded instances defined in HOL Light/Flyspeck, such as ("+", "vectoradd"). The constant vectoradd would be replaced by + in the resulting sentence.

Getting the infix operators from HOL Light, and printing them as infix in the informalized sentences. Since + is declared as infix, vectoradd u v, would thus result in u + v.

Getting all “prefixed” symbols from the list of 1000 most frequent symbols by searching for:
real, int, vector, nadd, treal, hreal, matrix, complex
and making them ambiguous by forgetting the prefix. 
Similar overloading of various other symbols that disambiguate overloading, for example the “c”versions of functions such as ccos cexp clog csin, similarly for vsum, rpow, nsum, listsum, etc.

Deleting brackets, type annotations, and the 10 most frequent casting functors such as Cx and realofnum.
The InformalToFormal Translation Task
The informaltoformal translation task is to construct an AI system that will automatically produce the most probable formal (in this case HOL) parse trees for previously unseen informal sentences. For example, the informalized statement of the HOL theorem REALNEGNEG:
! A0   A0 = A0
has the formal HOL Light representation shown in Fig. 1 (as a text) and in Fig. 2 (as a tree). Note that all overloaded symbols are disambiguated there, they are applied with the correct arity, and all terms are decorated with their result types. To solve the task, we allow (and assume) training on a sufficiently large corpus of such informal/formal pairs.
Probabilistic Context Free Grammars
Given a large corpus of corresponding informal/formal formulas, how can we train an AI system for parsing the next informal formula into a formal one? The informaltoformal domain differs from naturallanguage domains, where millions of examples of paired (e.g., English/German) sentences are available for training machine translation. The natural languages also have many more words (concepts) than in mathematics, and the sentences to a large extent also lack the recursive structure that is frequently encountered in mathematics. Given that there are currently only thousands of informal/formal examples, purely statistical alignment methods based on ngrams seem inadequate. Instead, the methods have to learn how to compose larger parse trees from smaller ones based on those encountered in the limited number of examples.
A wellknown approach ensuring such compositionality is the use of CFG (Context Free Grammar) parsers. This approach has been widely used, e.g., in wordsense disambiguation. A frequently used CFG algorithm is the CYK (Cocke–Younger–Kasami) chartparser [Younger1967], based on bottomup parsing. By default CYK requires the CFG to be in the Chomsky Normal Form (CNF). The transformation to CNF can cause an exponential blowup of the grammar, however, an improved version of CYK gets around this issue [Lange and Leiß2009].
In linguistic applications the input grammar for the CFGbased parsers is typically extracted from the grammar trees which correspond to the correct parses of naturallanguage sentences. Large annonated treebanks of such correct parses exist for natural languages. The grammar rules extracted from the treebanks are typically ambiguous: there are multiple possible parse trees for a particular sentence. This is why CFG is extended by adding a probability to each grammar rule, resulting in Probabilistic CFG (PCFG).
3 PCFG for the InformalToFormal Task
The most straightforward PCFGbased approach would be to directly use the native HOL Light parse trees (Fig. 2) for extracting the PCFG. However, terms and types are there annotated with only a few nonterminals such as: Comb (application), Abs (abstraction), Const (higherorder constant), Var (variable), Tyapp (type application), and Tyvar (type variable). This would lead to many possible parses in the contextfree setting, because the learned rules are very universal, e.g:
Comb > Const Var. Comb > Const Const. Comb > Comb Comb.
The type information does not help to constrain the applications, and the last rule allows a series of several constants to be given arbitrary application order, leading to uncontrolled explosion.
HOL Types as Nonterminals
The approach taken in [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b] is to first reorder and simplify the HOL Light parse trees to propagate the type information at appropriate places. This gives the contextfree rules a chance of providing meaningful pruning information. For example, consider again the raw HOL Light parse tree for REALNEGNEG (Fig. 1,2).
Instead of directly extracting very general rules such as Comb > Const Abs, each type is first compressed into an opaque nonterminal. This turns the parse tree of REALNEGNEG into (see also Fig. 3):
("(Type bool)" ! ("(Type (fun real bool))" (Abs ("(Type real)" (Var A0)) ("(Type bool)" ("(Type real)" realneg ("(Type real)" realneg ("(Type real)" (Var A0)))) = ("(Type real)" (Var A0))))))
The CFG rules extracted from this transformed tree thus become more targeted. For example, the two rules:
"(Type bool)" > "(Type real)" = "(Type real)".
"(Type real)" > realneg "(Type real)".
say that equality of two reals has type bool, and negation applied to reals yields reals. Such learned probabilistic typing rules restrict the number of possible parses much more than the general “application” rules extracted from the original HOL Light tree. The rules still have a nontrivial generalization (learning) effect that is needed for the compositional behavior of the information extracted from the trees. For example, once we learn from the training data that the variable ‘‘u’’ is mostly parsed as a real number, i.e.:
"(Type real)" > Var u.
we will be able to apply realneg to ‘‘u’’ even if the particular subterm ‘‘realneg u’’ has never yet been seen in the training examples, and the probability of this parse will be relatively high.
In other words, having the HOL types as semantic categories (corresponding e.g. to word senses when using PCFG for wordsense disambiguation) is a reasonable choice for the first experiments. It is however likely that even better semantic categories can be developed, based on more involved statistical and semantic analysis of the data such as latent semantics [Deerwester et al.1990].
Semantic Concepts as Nonterminals
The last part of the original setting wraps ambiguous symbols, such as ‘‘’’, in their disambiguated semantic/formal concept nonterminals. In this case $#realneg would be wrapped around ‘‘’’ in the training tree when ‘‘’’ is used as subtraction on reals. While the type annotation is often sufficient for disambiguation, such explicit disambiguation nonterminal is more precise and allows easier extraction of the HOL semantics from the constructed parse trees. The actual tree of REALNEGNEG used for training the grammar is thus as follows (see also Fig. 4):
("(Type bool)" ! ("(Type (fun real bool))" (Abs ("(Type real)" (Var A0)) ("(Type bool)" ("(Type real)" ($#realneg ) ("(Type real)" ($#realneg ) ("(Type real)" (Var A0)))) ($#= =) ("(Type real)" (Var A0))))))
Modified CYK Parsing and Its Initial Performance
Once the PCFG is learned from such data, the CYK algorithm augmented with fast internal semantic checks is used to parse the informal sentences. The semantic checks are performed to require compatibility of the types of free variables in parsed subtrees. The most probable parse trees are then typechecked by HOL Light. This is followed by proof and disproof attempts by the HOL(y)Hammer system [Kaliszyk and Urban2014], using all the semantic knowledge available in the Flyspeck library (about 22000 theorems). The first largescale disambiguation experiment conducted over “ambiguated” Flyspeck in [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b] showed that about 40% of the ambiguous sentences have their correct parses among the best 20 parse trees produced by the trained parser. This is encouraging, but certainly invites further research in improving the statistical/semantic parsing methods.
4 Limits of the ContextFree Grammars
A major limiting issue when using PCFGbased parsing algorithms is the contextfreeness of the grammar. This is most obvious when using just the lowlevel term constructors as nonterminals, however it shows often also in the more advanced setting described above. In some cases, no matter how good are the training data, there is no way how to set up the probabilities of the parsing rules so that the required parse tree will have the highest probability. We show this on the following simple example.
Example:
Consider the following term :
1 * x + 2 * x.
with the following simplified parse tree (see also Fig. 5).
(S (Num (Num (Num 1) * (Num x)) + (Num (Num 2) * (Num x))) .)
When used as the training data (treebank), the grammar tree results in the following set of CFG rules :
S > Num . Num > 1 Num > Num + Num Num > 2 Num > Num * Num Num > x
This grammar allows exactly the following five parse trees when used on the original (nonbracketed) term :
(S (Num (Num 1) * (Num (Num (Num x) + (Num 2)) * (Num x))) .) (S (Num (Num 1) * (Num (Num x) + (Num (Num 2) * (Num x)))) .) (S (Num (Num (Num 1) * (Num (Num x) + (Num 2))) * (Num x)) .) (S (Num (Num (Num (Num 1) * (Num x)) + (Num 2)) * (Num x)) .) (S (Num (Num (Num 1) * (Num x)) + (Num (Num 2) * (Num x))) .)
Here only the last tree corresponds to the original training tree . No matter what probabilities are assigned to the grammar rules , it is not possible to make the priority of + smaller than the priority of *. A contextfree grammar forgets the context and cannot remember and apply complex mechanisms such as priorities. The probability of all parse trees is thus in this case always the same, and equal to:
While the example’s correct parse does not strictly imply the priorities of + and * as we know them, it is clear that we would like the grammar to prefer parse trees that are in some sense more similar to the training data. One method that is frequently used for dealing with similar problems in the NLP domain is grammar lexicalization [Collins1997]. There an additional terminal can be appended to nonterminals and propagated from the subtrees, thus creating many more possible (more precise) nonterminals. This approach however does not solve the particular problem with operator priorities. We also believe that considering probabilities of larger subtrees in the data as we propose below is conceptually cleaner than lexicalization.
5 Using Probabilities of Deeper Subtrees
Our solution is motivated by an analogy with the ngram statistical machinetranslation models, and also with the largetheory premise selection systems. In such systems, characterizing formulas by all deeper subterms and subformulas is feasible and typically considerably improves the performance of the algorithms [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015a]. Considering subtrees of greater depth for updating the parsing probabilities may initially seem computationally involved. Below we however show that by using efficient ATPstyle indexing datastructures such as discrimination trees, this approach becomes feasible, solving in a reasonably clean way some of the inherent problems of the contextfree grammars mentioned above.
In more detail, our approach is as follows. We extract not just subtrees of depth 2 from the treebank (as is done by the standard PCFG), but all subtrees up to a certain depth. Other approaches – such as frequencybased rather than depthbased – are possible. During the (modified) CYK chart parsing, the probabilities of the parsed subtrees are adjusted by taking into account the statistics of such deeper subtrees extracted from the treebank. The extracted subtrees are technically treated as new “grammar rules” of the form:
root of the subtree > list of the children of the subtree
Formally, for a treebank (set of trees) , we thus define to be the grammar rules of depth extracted from . The standard contextfree grammar then becomes , and we denote by where the union^{1}^{1}1In general, a grammar could pick only some subtree depths instead of their contiguous intervals, but we do not use such grammars now. . The probabilities of these deeper grammar rules are again learned from the treebank. Our current solution treats the nonterminals on the lefthand sides as disjoint from the old (standard CFG) nonterminals when counting the probabilities (this can be made more complicated in the future). The righthand sides of such new grammar rules thus contain larger subtrees, allowing to compute the parsing probabilities using more context/structural information than in the standard contextfree case.
For the example term from Section 4 this works as follows. After the extraction of all subtrees of depth 2 and 3 and the appropriate adjustment of their probabilities, we get a new extended set of probabilistic grammar rules . This grammar could again parse all the five different parse trees as in Section 4, but now the probabilities would in general differ, and an implementation would be able to choose the training tree as the most probable one. In the particular implementation that we use (see Section 5) its probability is:
Here the second line from the bottom stands for the probability of a subtree of depth 3. For the case of the oneelement treebank , would indeed be the highest probability. On the other hand, the probability of some of the other parses (e.g., and above) would remain unmodified, because in such parses there are no subtrees of depth 3 from the training tree .
Efficient Implementation of Deeper Subtrees
Discrimination trees [Robinson and Voronkov2001], as first implemented by Greenbaum [Greenbaum1986], index terms in a trie, which keeps single pathstrings at each of the indexed terms. A discrimination tree can be constructed efficiently, by inserting terms in the traversal preorder. Since discrimination trees are based on path indexing, retrieval of matching subtrees during the parsing is straightforward.
We use a discrimination tree to store all the subtrees from the treebank and to efficiently retrieve them together with their probabilities during the chart parsing. The efficiency of the implementation is important, as we need to index about half a million subtrees in for the experiments over Flyspeck. On the other hand, such numbers have become quite common in largetheory reasoning recently and do not pose a significant problem. For memory efficiency we use OCaml maps (implemented as AVL trees) in the internal nodes of . The lookup time thus grows logarithmically with the number of trees in , which is the main reason why we so far only consider trees of depth 3.
When a particular cell in the CYK parsing chart is finished (i.e., all its possible parses are known), the subtreebased probability update is initiated. The algorithm thus consists of two phases: (i) the standard collecting of all possible parses of a particular cell, using the contextfree rules only, and (ii) the computation of probabilities, which involves also the deeper (contextual) subtrees .
In the second phase, every parse of the particular cell is inspected, trying to find its toplevel subtrees of depths in the discrimination tree . If a matching tree is found in , the probability of is recomputed, using the probability of . There are various ways how to combine the old contextfree and the new contextual probabilities. The current method we use is to take the maximum of the probabilities, keeping them as competing methods. As mentioned above, the nonterminals in the new subtreebased rules are kept disjoint from the old contextfree rules when computing the grammar rule probabilities. The usual effect is that a frequent deeper subtree that matches the parse gives it more probability, because such a “deeper context parse” replaces the corresponding two shallow (old contextfree) rules, whose probabilities would have to be multiplied.
Our speed measurement with depth 3 has shown that the new implementation is (surprisingly) faster. In particular, when training on all 21695 Flypeck trees and testing on 11911 of them with the limit of 10 best parses, the new version is 23% faster than the old one (10342.75 s vs. 13406.97 s total time). In this measurement the new version also failed to produce at least a single parse less often than the old version (631 vs 818). This likely means that the deeper subtrees help to promote the correct parse, which in the contextfree version is considered at some point too improbable to make it into the top 10 parses and consequently discarded.
6 Experimental Evaluation
Machine Learning Evaluation
The main evaluation is done in the same crossvalidation scenario as in [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b]. We create the ambiguous sentences (Sec. 2) and the disambiguated grammar trees from all 21695 Flyspeck theorems,^{2}^{2}2About 1% of the longest Flyspeck formulas were removed from the evaluation to keep the parsing times manageable. permute them randomly and split into 100 equally sized chunks of about 217 trees and their corresponding sentences. The grammar trees serve for training and the ambiguous sentences for evaluation. For each testing chunk () of 217 sentences we train the probabilistic grammar on the union of the remaining 99 chunks of grammar trees (altogether about 21478 trees). Then we try to get the best 20 parse trees for all the 217 sentences in using the grammar . This is done for the simple contextfree version (depth 2) of the algorithm (Section 3), as well as for the versions using deeper subtrees (Section 5). The numbers of correctly parsed formulas and their average ranks across the several 100fold crossvalidations are shown in Table 1.
depth  correct parse found (%)  avg. rank of correct parse 

2  8998 (41.5)  3.81 
3  11003 (50.7)  2.66 
4  13875 (64.0)  2.50 
5  14614 (67.4)  2.34 
6  14745 (68.0)  2.13 
7  14379 (66.2)  2.17 
It is clear that the introduction of deeper subtrees into the CYK algorithm has produced a significant improvement of the parsing precision. The number of correctly parsed formulas appearing among the top 20 parses has increased by 22% between the contextfree (depth 2) version and the subtreebased version when using subtrees of depth 3, and it grows by 64% when using subtrees of depth 6.
The comparison of the average ranks is in general only a heuristic indicator, because the number of correct parses found differ so significantly between the methods.
^{3}^{3}3If the contextfree version parsed only a few terms, but with the best rank, its average rank would be 1, but the method would still be much worse in terms of the overall number of correctly parsed terms. However, since the number of parses is higher in the betterranking methods, this improvement is also relevant. The average rank of the best subtreebased method (depth 6) is only about 56% of the contextfree method. The results of the best method say that for 68% of the theorems the correct parse of an ambiguous statement is among the best 20 parses, and its average rank among them is 2.13.ATP Evaluation
In the ATP evaluation we measure how many of the correctly parsed formulas the HOL(y)Hammer system can prove, and thus help to confirm their validity. While the machinelearning evaluation is for simplicity done by randomization, regardless of the chronological order of the Flyspeck theorems, in the ATP evaluation we only allow facts that were already proved in Flyspeck before the currently parsed formula. Otherwise the theoremproving task becomes too easy, because the premiseselection algorithm will likely select the theorem itself as the most relevant premise. Since this involves large amount of computation, we only compare the best new subtreebased method (depth 6) from Table 1 (subtree6) with the old contextfree method (subtree2).
In the ATP evaluation, the number of the Flyspeck theorems is reduced from 21695 to 17018. This is due to omitting definitions and duplicities during the chronological processing and ATP problem generation. For actual theorem proving, we only use a single (strongest) HOL(y)Hammer method: the distanceweighted nearest neighbor (NN) [Dudani1976] using the strongest combination of features [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015a], with IDFbased feature weighting [Kaliszyk and Urban2013] and 128 premises, and running Vampire 4.0 [Kovács and Voronkov2013]. Running the full portfolio of 14 AI/ATP HOL(y)Hammer strategies for hundreds of thousands problems would be too computationally expensive.
subtree2 (%)  subtree6 (%)  

at least one parse (limit 20)  14101 (82.9)  16049 (94.3) 
at least one correct parse  5744 (33.8)  10735 (63.1) 
at least one OLT parse  808 (4.7)  1584 (9.3) 
at least one parse proved  5682 (33.3)  7538 (44.3) 
correct parse proved  1762 (10.4)  2616 (15.4) 
at least one OLT parse proved  525 (3.1)  814 (4.8) 
the first parse proved is correct  1168 (6.7)  2064 (12.1) 
the first parse proved is OLT  332 (2.0)  713 (4.2) 
Table 2 shows the results. In this evaluation we also detect situations when an ambiguated Flyspeck theorem is parsed as a different known Flyspeck theorem . We call the latter situation other library theorem (OLT). The removal of definitions and duplicitites made the difference in the top20 correctly parsed sentences even higher, going from 33.8% for subtree2 to 63.1% in subtree6. This is an 81% improvement. A correspondingly high increase between subtree2 and subtree6 is also in the number of situations when the first parse is correct (or OLT) and HOL(y)Hammer can prove it using the previous Flyspeck facts. The much greater easiness of proving an existing library theorem than proving a new theorem explains the relatively high number of provable OLTs when compared to their total number of occurences. Such OLT proofs are however very easy to filter out when using HOL(y)Hammer as a semantic filter for the informaltoformal translation.
7 Conclusion and Future Work
In comparison to the first results of [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b], we have very significantly increased the success rate of the informaltoformal translation task on the Flyspeck corpus. The overall improvement in the number of correct parses among the top 20 is 64% and even higher when omitting duplicities and definitions (81%). The average rank of the correct parse has decreased by 44%. We believe that the contextual approach to enhancing CYK we took is rather natural (in particular more natural than lexicalization), the discrimination tree indexing scales to this task, and the performance increase is very impressive.
Future work includes adding further semantic checks and better probabilistic ranking subroutines directly into the parsing process. The chartparsing algorithm is easy to extend with such checks and subroutines, and already the current semantic pruning of parse trees that have incompatible variable types is extremely important. While some semantic relations might eventually be learnable by methods such as recurrent neural networks (RNNs), we believe that the current approach allows more flexible experimenting and nontrivial integration and feedback loops between advanced deductive and learning components. A possible use of RNNs in such a setup is for better ranking of subtrees and for global focusing of the parsing process.
An example of a more sophisticated deductive algorithm that should be easy to integrate is congruence closure over provably equal (or equivalent) parsing subtrees. For example, ‘‘a * b * c’’ can be understood with different bracketing, different types of the variables and different interpretations of *. However, * is almost always associative across all types and interpretations. Human readers know this, and rather than considering differently bracketed parses, they focus on the real problem, i.e., which types to assign to the variables and how to interpret the operator in the current context. To be able to emulate this ability, we would cache directly in the chart parsing algorithm the results of largetheory ATP runs on many previously encountered equalities, and use them for fast congruence closure over the subtrees.
References
 [Bancerek and Rudnicki2002] Bancerek, G., and Rudnicki, P. 2002. A Compendium of Continuous Lattices in MIZAR. J. Autom. Reasoning 29(34):189–224.
 [Blanchette et al.2016] Blanchette, J. C.; Kaliszyk, C.; Paulson, L. C.; and Urban, J. 2016. Hammering towards QED. J. Formalized Reasoning 9(1):101–148.
 [Collins1997] Collins, M. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In Cohen, P. R., and Wahlster, W., eds., 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, 712 July 1997, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain., 16–23. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL.
 [coq] The Coq Proof Assistant. http://coq.inria.fr.
 [Deerwester et al.1990] Deerwester, S. C.; Dumais, S. T.; Landauer, T. K.; Furnas, G. W.; and Harshman, R. A. 1990. Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. JASIS 41(6):391–407.
 [Dudani1976] Dudani, S. A. 1976. The distanceweighted knearestneighbor rule. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on SMC6(4):325–327.
 [Garillot et al.2009] Garillot, F.; Gonthier, G.; Mahboubi, A.; and Rideau, L. 2009. Packaging mathematical structures. In Berghofer, S.; Nipkow, T.; Urban, C.; and Wenzel, M., eds., Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, 22nd International Conference, TPHOLs 2009, Munich, Germany, August 1720, 2009. Proceedings, volume 5674 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 327–342. Springer.
 [Gonthier and Tassi2012] Gonthier, G., and Tassi, E. 2012. A language of patterns for subterm selection. In Beringer, L., and Felty, A. P., eds., Interactive Theorem Proving  Third International Conference, ITP 2012, Princeton, NJ, USA, August 1315, 2012. Proceedings, volume 7406 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 361–376. Springer.

[Gonthier et al.2013]
Gonthier, G.; Asperti, A.; Avigad, J.; Bertot, Y.; Cohen, C.; Garillot, F.;
Roux, S. L.; Mahboubi, A.; O’Connor, R.; Biha, S. O.; Pasca, I.; Rideau, L.;
Solovyev, A.; Tassi, E.; and Théry, L.
2013.
A machinechecked proof of the Odd Order Theorem.
In Blazy, S.; PaulinMohring, C.; and Pichardie, D., eds., ITP, volume 7998 of LNCS, 163–179. Springer.  [Grabowski, Korniłowicz, and Naumowicz2010] Grabowski, A.; Korniłowicz, A.; and Naumowicz, A. 2010. Mizar in a nutshell. J. Formalized Reasoning 3(2):153–245.
 [Greenbaum1986] Greenbaum, S. 1986. Input transformations and resolution implementation techniques for theoremproving in firstorder logic. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
 [Haftmann and Wenzel2006] Haftmann, F., and Wenzel, M. 2006. Constructive type classes in isabelle. In Altenkirch, T., and McBride, C., eds., Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop, TYPES 2006, Nottingham, UK, April 1821, 2006, Revised Selected Papers, volume 4502 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 160–174. Springer.
 [Hales et al.2015] Hales, T. C.; Adams, M.; Bauer, G.; Dang, D. T.; Harrison, J.; Hoang, T. L.; Kaliszyk, C.; Magron, V.; McLaughlin, S.; Nguyen, T. T.; Nguyen, T. Q.; Nipkow, T.; Obua, S.; Pleso, J.; Rute, J.; Solovyev, A.; Ta, A. H. T.; Tran, T. N.; Trieu, D. T.; Urban, J.; Vu, K. K.; and Zumkeller, R. 2015. A formal proof of the Kepler conjecture. CoRR abs/1501.02155.
 [Hales2012] Hales, T. 2012. Dense Sphere Packings: A Blueprint for Formal Proofs, volume 400 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press.
 [Harrison, Urban, and Wiedijk2014] Harrison, J.; Urban, J.; and Wiedijk, F. 2014. History of interactive theorem proving. In Siekmann, J. H., ed., Computational Logic, volume 9 of Handbook of the History of Logic. Elsevier. 135–214.
 [Harrison1996] Harrison, J. 1996. HOL Light: A tutorial introduction. In Srivas, M. K., and Camilleri, A. J., eds., FMCAD, volume 1166 of LNCS, 265–269. Springer.
 [Kaliszyk and Urban2013] Kaliszyk, C., and Urban, J. 2013. Stronger automation for Flyspeck by feature weighting and strategy evolution. In Blanchette, J. C., and Urban, J., eds., PxTP 2013, volume 14 of EPiC Series, 87–95. EasyChair.
 [Kaliszyk and Urban2014] Kaliszyk, C., and Urban, J. 2014. Learningassisted automated reasoning with Flyspeck. J. Autom. Reasoning 53(2):173–213.
 [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015a] Kaliszyk, C.; Urban, J.; and Vyskocil, J. 2015a. Efficient semantic features for automated reasoning over large theories. In Yang, Q., and Wooldridge, M., eds., IJCAI’15, 3084–3090. AAAI Press.
 [Kaliszyk, Urban, and Vyskocil2015b] Kaliszyk, C.; Urban, J.; and Vyskocil, J. 2015b. Learning to parse on aligned corpora (rough diamond). In Urban, C., and Zhang, X., eds., Interactive Theorem Proving  6th International Conference, ITP 2015, Nanjing, China, August 2427, 2015, Proceedings, volume 9236 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 227–233. Springer.
 [Klein et al.2010] Klein, G.; Andronick, J.; Elphinstone, K.; Heiser, G.; Cock, D.; Derrin, P.; Elkaduwe, D.; Engelhardt, K.; Kolanski, R.; Norrish, M.; Sewell, T.; Tuch, H.; and Winwood, S. 2010. seL4: formal verification of an operatingsystem kernel. Commun. ACM 53(6):107–115.
 [Kovács and Voronkov2013] Kovács, L., and Voronkov, A. 2013. Firstorder theorem proving and Vampire. In Sharygina, N., and Veith, H., eds., CAV, volume 8044 of LNCS, 1–35. Springer.
 [Lange and Leiß2009] Lange, M., and Leiß, H. 2009. To CNF or not to CNF? an efficient yet presentable version of the CYK algorithm. Informatica Didactica 8.
 [Leroy2009] Leroy, X. 2009. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Commun. ACM 52(7):107–115.
 [Robinson and Voronkov2001] Robinson, J. A., and Voronkov, A., eds. 2001. Handbook of Automated Reasoning (in 2 volumes). Elsevier and MIT Press.
 [Rudnicki, Schwarzweller, and Trybulec2001] Rudnicki, P.; Schwarzweller, C.; and Trybulec, A. 2001. Commutative algebra in the Mizar system. J. Symb. Comput. 32(1/2):143–169.
 [Tankink et al.2013] Tankink, C.; Kaliszyk, C.; Urban, J.; and Geuvers, H. 2013. Formal mathematics on display: A wiki for Flyspeck. In Carette, J.; Aspinall, D.; Lange, C.; Sojka, P.; and Windsteiger, W., eds., MKM/Calculemus/DML, volume 7961 of LNCS, 152–167. Springer.
 [Wenzel, Paulson, and Nipkow2008] Wenzel, M.; Paulson, L. C.; and Nipkow, T. 2008. The Isabelle framework. In Mohamed, O. A.; Muñoz, C. A.; and Tahar, S., eds., TPHOLs, volume 5170 of LNCS, 33–38. Springer.
 [Younger1967] Younger, D. H. 1967. Recognition and parsing of contextfree languages in time n^3. Information and Control 10(2):189–208.
 [Zinn2004] Zinn, C. 2004. Understanding informal mathematical discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of ErlangenNuremberg.
Comments
There are no comments yet.