The CADE ATP System Competition
Design and Organization
This document contains information about the:
The rules, specifications, and deadlines given here are absolute.
Only the competition panel has the right to make exceptions.
It is assumed that all entrants have read the web pages related
to the competition, and have complied with the competition rules.
Non-compliance with the rules could lead to disqualification.
A "catch-all" rule is used to deal with any unforeseen circumstances:
No cheating is allowed.
The panel is allowed to disqualify entrants
due to unfairness, and to adjust the competition rules in case of misuse.
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to organize the competition in a fair and
constructive manner.
No responsibility is taken if, for one reason or the other, your system
does not win.
Changes
The design and procedures of this CASC evolved from those of
previous CASCs.
Important changes for this CASC are:
- The TFA division is a full competition division,
with two problem categories.
- The TNT (Typed higher-order form
Non-Theorem) demonstration division has been added.
- The FOF division has only a
proof ranking class.
The FNT division has only a
model ranking class.
Systems that do not output proofs/models can still enter the FOF/FNT
divisions, and the number of problems solved will be shown in
the results.
Such systems just cannot win the division trophy.
The CNF division has only an
assurance ranking class.
The LTB division has only an
assurance ranking class.
- In the LTB division:
- The ISA problem category has
been added to the LTB division.
- A batch specification file
can have multiple batches, each consisting of a configuration
section, an includes section, and a problems section.
Each batch is independent of the other batches in the file.
- The batch configuration sections specify what output is required
and desired from the ATP systems.
- The overall time limit for each
problem category is available only as a command line parameter.
- The ISA problem category has an additional
performance measure,
measuring the numbers of axioms used in proofs - small number of
axioms are useful for replaying proofs within Isabelle.
- The SMO problem category has an additional
performance measure,
counting the number of problems solved with the bindings for
outermost existentially quantified variables reported – these are
answers for query conjectures.
Divisions
CASC is run in divisions according to problem and system characteristics.
There are competition divisions in which systems are explicitly
ranked, and a demonstration division in which systems demonstrate
their abilities without being formally ranked.
Some divisions are further divided into problem categories, which
make it possible to analyse, at a more fine grained level, which systems
work well for what types of problems.
The problem categories have no effect on the competition rankings, which
are made at only the division level.
Competition Divisions
The competition divisions are open to ATP systems that meet the required
system properties.
Each competition division uses problems that have certain logical,
language, and syntactic characteristics, so that the ATP systems that
compete in the division are, in principle, able to attempt all the
problems in the division.
In the following, really non-propositional means with an infinite
Herbrand universe.
Effectively propositional means syntactically non-propositional
with a finite Herbrand Universe.
- The THF division:
Typed Higher-order Form theorems (axioms with a provable conjecture),
using the THF0 syntax.
The THF division has two problem categories:
- The TNE category: THF with No Equality
- The TEQ category: THF with EQuality
- The TFA division:
Typed First-order with Arithmetic theorems (axioms with a provable
conjecture), using the TFF0 syntax.
The TFA division has two problem categories:
- The TFI category: TFA with only Integer arithmetic
- The TFR category: TFA with only Rational or only
Real arithmetic (no mixed rational and real arithmetic)
- The FOF division:
First-Order Form syntactically non-propositional theorems (axioms with
a provable conjecture).
The FOF division has three problem categories:
- The FNE category: FOF with No Equality,
not (known to be) effectively propositional
- The FEQ category: FOF with EQuality,
not (known to be) effectively propositional
- The FEP category: FOF Effectively Propositional
- The FNT division:
First-order form syntactically non-propositional Non-Theorems (axioms
with a countersatisfiable conjecture, and satisfiable axiom sets).
The FNT division has two problem categories:
- The FNN category: FNT with No equality
- The FNQ category: FNT with eQuality
- The CNF division:
Clause Normal Form really non-propositional theorems
(unsatisfiable clause sets), but not unit equality problems
(see the UEQ division below).
The CNF division has five problem categories:
- The HNE category: Horn with No Equality
- The HEQ category: Horn with some (but not pure)
EQuality
- The NNE category: Non-Horn with No Equality
- The NEQ category: Non-Horn with some (but not pure)
EQuality
- The PEQ category: Pure EQuality
- The EPR division:
Effectively PRopositional clause normal form theorems and non-theorems
(clause sets).
The EPR division has two problem categories:
- The EPT category: Effectively Propositional Theorems
(unsatisfiable clause sets)
- The EPS category: Effectively Propositional
non-theorems (Satisfiable clause sets)
- The UEQ division:
Unit EQuality clause normal form really non-propositional theorems
(unsatisfiable clause sets).
- The LTB division:
First-order form non-propositional theorems (axioms with a provable
conjecture) from Large Theories, presented in Batches.
The LTB division has four problem categories:
- The CYC category: Problems taken from the
Cyc contribution to the CSR
domain of the TPTP.
These are problems CSR025 to CSR074.
- The ISA category: Problems taken from an
Isabelle
contribution to the SWW domain of the TPTP.
These problems are SWW104 to SWW396.
- The MZR category: Problems taken from the
Mizar Problems for Theorem Proving (MPTP) contribution to
the TPTP.
These are problems ALG214 to ALG234,
CAT021 to CAT037,
GRP618 to GRP653,
LAT282 to LAT380,
SEU406 to SEU451,
and TOP023 to TOP048.
- The SMO category: Problems taken from the
Suggested Upper Merged
Ontology (SUMO) contribution to the CSR
domain of the TPTP.
These are problems CSR075 to CSR109, and
CSR118.
The problems section explains what problems are
eligible for use in each division and category.
The system evaluation section explains how the
systems are ranked in each division.
Demonstration Division
ATP systems that cannot run in the competition divisions for any reason
(e.g., the system requires special hardware, or the entrant is an organizer)
can be entered into the demonstration division.
Demonstration division systems can run on the competition computers, or the
computers can be supplied by the entrant.
Computers supplied by the entrant may be brought to CASC, or may be
accessed via the internet.
The entry specifies which competition divisions' problems are to be used.
The demonstration division results are presented along with the competition
divisions' results, but might not be comparable with those results.
The systems are not ranked and no prizes are awarded.
For CASC-23 there is an additional demonstration division:
- The TNT division:
Typed higher-order form Non-Theorems (axioms with a countersatisfiable
conjecture, and satisfiable axiom sets), using the THF0 syntax.
The TNT division has two problem categories:
- The TTN category: TNT with No equality
- The TTE category: TNT with Equality
Infrastructure
Computers
The computers are Dell PowerEdge blade computers, each having:
- Two Intel Xeon E5620, quad-core, 2.40GHz CPUs
- 48GB memory
- GNU Linux cl5-001 2.6.32.22.1.amd64-smp operating system
In the non-LTB division systems may use only one core, and will be limited
to a fraction of the memory (multiple
jobs will be run on each node).
In the LTB division each system will be allocated one node, and may use all
the cores and memory.
Problems
Problem Selection
The problems are from the
TPTP Problem Library.
The TPTP version used for the competition is not released until after the
system delivery deadline, so that new problems have not been seen by
the entrants.
The problems have to meet certain criteria to be eligible for selection:
- The TPTP uses system performance data to compute problem difficulty
ratings, and from the ratings classifies problems as one of:
- Easy: Solvable by all state-of-the-art ATP systems
- Difficult: Solvable by some state-of-the-art ATP systems
- Unsolved: Not yet solved by any ATP system
- Open: Theorem-hood unknown
Difficult problems with a rating in the range 0.21 to 0.99 are eligible.
Problems of lesser and greater ratings might also be eligible
in some divisions
(especially the LTB division, because the TPTP problem ratings are
computed from sequential mode results).
Performance data from systems submitted by the
system submission deadline is used for computing the problem
ratings for the TPTP version used for the competition.
- The TPTP distinguishes versions of problems as one of standard,
incomplete, augmented, especial, or biased.
All except biased problems are eligible.
- In the LTB division, the problems are selected so that there is
consistent symbol usage between problems in each batch, but
there may not be consistent axiom naming between problems.
The problems used are randomly selected from the eligible problems at the
start of the competition, based on a seed supplied by the competition panel.
- The selection is constrained so that no division or category contains
an excessive number of very similar problems.
- The selection mechanism is biased to select problems that are new in
the TPTP version used, until 50% of the problems in each category have
been selected, after which random selection (from old and new problems)
continues.
The actual percentage of new problems used depends on how many new
problems are eligible and the limitation on very similar problems.
Number of Problems
The minimal numbers of problems that must be used in each division and
category, to ensure sufficient confidence in the competition results,
are determined from the numbers of eligible problems in each division
and category
(the competition organizers have to ensure that there are sufficient computers
available to run the ATP systems on this minimal number of problems).
The minimal numbers of problems are used in determining the
time limits imposed on each solution attempt.
A lower bound on the total number of problems to be used is determined from
the number of computers available,
the time allocated to the competition,
the number of ATP systems to be run on the competition computers over all the
divisions, and
the time limit per problem,
according to the following relationship:
NumberOfComputers * TimeAllocated
NumberOfProblems = ---------------------------------
NumberOfATPSystems * TimeLimit
It is a lower bound on the total number of problems because it assumes that
every system uses all of the time limit for each problem.
Since some solution attempts succeed before the time limit is reached, more
problems can be used.
The numbers of problems used in each division and problem category are
(roughly) proportional to the numbers of eligible problems, after taking
into account the limitation on very similar problems.
The numbers of problems used in each division and category are determined
according to the judgement of the competition organizers.
Problem Preparation
The problems are in TPTP format, with include directives (included
files are found relative to the TPTP environment variable).
The problems in each non-LTB division and each LTB batch are given in
increasing order of TPTP difficulty rating
(this is aesthetic in the non-LTB divisions, but practically important in
the LTB batches where it is possible to learn from proofs found earlier
in the batch).
In order to ensure that no system receives an advantage or disadvantage
due to the specific presentation of the problems in the TPTP, the problems
are preprocessed to:
- strip out all comment lines, including the problem header
- randomly reorder the formulae/clauses (the include directives
are left before the formulae, and type declarations are kept before the
symbols' uses)
- randomly swap the arguments of associative connectives, and
randomly reverse implications
- randomly reverse equalities
In order to prevent systems from recognizing problems from their file names,
symbolic links are made to the selected problems, using names of the
form CCCNNN.p for the symbolic links.
CCC is the division or problem category name, and NNN runs
from 001 to the number of problems in the division or category.
The problems are specified to the ATP systems using the symbolic link
names.
In the demonstration division the same problems are used as for the
competition divisions, with the same preprocessing applied.
However, the original file names can be retained for systems running
on computers provided by the entrant.
LTB Batch Specification Files
In the LTB division, the problems for each category are listed in a
batch specification file, containing one or more batch specifications.
Each batch specification consists of:
- A header line % SZS start BatchConfiguration
- A problem category line of the form
division.category LTB.category_mnemonic
- A specification of what output is required from the ATP systems
for each problem, in a line of the form
output.required space_separated_list
where the available list values are the SZS values
Assurance, Proof, Model, and Answer.
For CASC-23 it will be
output.required Assurance
- A specification of what output is desired from the ATP systems
for each problem, in a line of the form
output.desired space_separated_list
where the list values are as for the required output.
For the CASC-23 CYC and MZR problem categories it will be
output.desired Proof
For the CASC-23 ISA problem category it will be
output.desired Proof ListOfFOF
where the ListOfFOF is a list of axioms sufficient for a proof
(if a proof is output then the list of axioms is not necessary).
For the CASC-23 SMO problem category it will be
output.desired Proof Answer
where the answer is a definite binding for the outermost
existentially quantified variables of the conjecture.
- The wall clock time limit per problem, in a line of the form
limit.time.problem.wc limit_in_seconds
- A terminator line % SZS end BatchConfiguration
- A header line % SZS start BatchIncludes
- include directives that are used in every problem.
Problems in the batch have all these include directives, and
can also have other include directives that are not listed here.
- A terminator line % SZS end BatchIncludes
- A header line % SZS start BatchProblems
- Pairs of absolute problem file names, and absolute output file
names where the output for the problem must be written.
The problems must be attempted in the given order.
Systems may not start any attempt on a problem, including reading the
problem file, before ending the attempt on the preceding problem.
- A terminator line % SZS end BatchProblems
LTBSampleInput1 and
LTBSampleInput2 are examples.
Resource Limits
Non-LTB divisions
CPU and wall clock time limits are imposed.
The minimal CPU time limit per problem is 240s.
The maximal CPU time limit per problem is determined using the relationship
used for determining the number of problems, with the minimal number of
problems as the NumberOfProblems.
The CPU time limit is chosen as a reasonable value within the range allowed,
and is announced at the competition.
The wall clock time limit is imposed in addition to the CPU time limit, to
limit very high memory usage that causes swapping.
The wall clock time limit per problem is double the CPU time limit.
For CASC-23, where multiple jobs will be run on each
node, an additional memory limit of 6GB will be imposed.
The time limits are imposed individually on each solution attempt.
In the demonstration division, each entrant can choose to use either a
CPU or a wall clock time limit, whose value is the CPU time limit of the
competition divisions.
LTB division
For each batch there is a wall clock time limit per problem, which is
provided in the configuration section at the start of each batch.
The minimal wall clock time limit per problem is 30s.
For each problem category there is an overall wall clock time limit, which
is available as a command line parameter.
The overall limit is the sum over the batches of the batch's per-problem
limit multiplied by the number of problems in the batch.
Time spent before starting the first problem of a batch (e.g., preloading
and analysing the batch axioms), and times spent between
ending a problem and starting the next (e.g.,
learning from a proof just found), are not part of the times taken on the
individual problems, but are part of the overall time taken.
There are no CPU time limits.
System Evaluation
For each ATP system, for each problem, four items of data are recorded:
whether or not the problem was solved,
the CPU time taken,
the wall clock time taken,
and whether or not a solution (proof or model) was output.
In the LTB division, the wall clock time is the time from when the system
reports starting on a problem and reports ending on
a problem - the time spent before starting the first problem, and times
spent between ending a problem and starting the next, are not part of the
time taken on problems.
The systems are ranked in the competition divisions, from the performance data.
The THF, TFA, CNF, EPR, UEQ, and LTB divisions have an assurance
ranking class, ranked according to the number of problems solved, but not
necessarily accompanied by a proof or model (thus giving only an assurance
of the existence of a proof/model).
The FOF and FNT divisions have a proof/model ranking class,
ranked according to the number of problems solved with an acceptable proof/model
output.
Ties are broken according to the average time over problems solved
(CPU time for the non-LTB divisions, wall clock time for the LTB division).
In the competition divisions, class winners are announced and prizes are
awarded.
- The Isabelle group
at the Technische Universität München has provided a travel
prize for the ISA problem category of the LTB division.
The prize will be awarded according to the axiom accuracy measure
described below.
The winner will be invited to visit the group at the university for
up to one week.
The travel and hotel expenses will be covered.
- Rearden Commerce has
provided $3000 of prize money for the
SMO category of the LTB
division.
Prizes will be awarded for the assurance ranking class, and also
according to the question answering measure described below.
In each case the winner will receive $750, the second place $500,
and the third place $250.
The competition panel decides whether or not the systems' proofs and models are
acceptable for the proof/model ranking classes.
The criteria include:
- Derivations must be complete, starting at formulae from the
problem, and ending at the conjecture (for axiomatic proofs) or a false
formula (for proofs by contradiction, including CNF refutations).
- For proofs of FOF problems by CNF refutation, the conversion from
FOF to CNF must be adequately documented.
- Derivations must show only relevant inference steps.
- Inference steps must document the parent formulae, the inference rule
used, and the inferred formula.
- Inference steps must be reasonably fine-grained.
- An unsatisfiable set of ground instances of clauses is acceptable for
establishing the unsatisfiability of a set of clauses.
- Models must be complete, documenting the domain, function maps,
and predicate maps.
The domain, function maps, and predicate maps may be specified by
explicit ground lists (of mappings), or by any clear, terminating
algorithm.
In the assurance ranking classes the ATP systems are not required to
output solutions (proofs or models).
However, systems that do output solutions are highlighted in the presentation
of results.
In addition to the ranking criteria, other measures are made and presented
in the results:
- The state-of-the-art contribution (SOTAC) quantifies the unique
abilities of each system.
For each problem solved by a system, its SOTAC for the problem is the
inverse of the number of systems that solved the problem.
A system's overall SOTAC is its average SOTAC over the problems it solves.
- The efficiency measure balances the number of problems solved with
the CPU time taken.
It is the average of the inverses of the times for problems solved
(CPU times for the non-LTB divisions, wall clock times for the LTB
division, with times less than the timing granularity rounded up to the
granularity, to avoid skewing caused by very low times) multiplied by
the fraction of problems solved.
This can be interpreted intuitively as the average of the solution rates
for problems solved, multiplied by the fraction of problems solved.
- In the LTB division, which uses a wall clock time limit, the core
usage is the average of the ratios of CPU time to wall clock time
used, over the problems solved.
This measures the extent to which the systems take advantage the
multiple cores.
- In the ISA problem category of the LTB division, the axiom
accuracy compares the numbers of axioms used in proofs.
For each problem solved by a system, its problem axiom accuracy is
the smallest number of axioms used in any system's proof, divided by the
number of axioms in this system's proof (or 0 if this system does
not output a proof).
A system's overall axiom accuracy is the average of its problem axiom
accuracies over the problems it solves, multiplied by the fraction of
problems solved.
This is the basis for the ISA category prize.
- In the SMO problem category of the LTB division, the
number of questions answered (output of the
bindings for the outermost existentially
quantified variables) is counted.
This is the basis for the SMO category prize.
At some time after the competition, all high ranking systems in the
competition divisions are tested over the entire TPTP.
This provides a final check for soundness (see the section on
system properties regarding soundness
checking before the competition).
If a system is found to be unsound during or after the competition, but
before the competition report is published, and it cannot be shown that the
unsoundness did not manifest itself in the competition, then the system
is retrospectively disqualified.
At some time after the competition, the proofs and models from the winners
of the proof/model ranking classes are checked by the panel.
If any of the proofs or models are unacceptable, i.e., they are significantly
worse than the samples provided, then that system is retrospectively
disqualified.
All disqualifications are explained in the competition report.
System Entry
To be entered into CASC, systems must be registered using the
CASC system registration form.
No registrations are accepted after the
registration deadline.
For each system entered, an entrant has to be nominated to handle all issues
(including execution difficulties) arising before and during the competition.
The nominated entrant must
formally register for CASC.
It is not necessary for entrants to physically attend the competition.
Systems can be entered at only the division level, and can be entered
into more than one division
(a system that is not entered into a competition division is assumed to
perform worse than the entered systems, for that type of problem -
wimping out is not an option).
Entering many similar versions of the same system is deprecated, and entrants
may be required to limit the number of system versions that they enter.
Systems that rely essentially on running other ATP systems without adding
value are deprecated; the competition panel may disallow or move such
systems to the demonstration division.
The division winners of the previous CASC
are automatically entered into their divisions, to provide benchmarks
against which progress can be judged.
System Description
A system description has to be provided for each ATP system entered, using
this HTML schema.
The schema has the following sections:
- Architecture. This section introduces the ATP system, and describes
the calculus and inference rules used.
- Strategies. This section describes the search strategies used, why
they are effective, and how they are selected for given problems.
Any strategy tuning that is based on specific problems' characteristics
must be clearly described (and justified in light of the
tuning restrictions).
- Implementation. This section describes the implementation of the ATP
system, including the programming language used, important internal
data structures, and any special code libraries used.
The availability of the system is also given here.
- Expected competition performance. This section makes some
predictions about the performance of the ATP system in each of the
divisions and categories in which it is competing.
- References.
The system description has to be emailed to the competition organizers by
the system description deadline.
The system descriptions, along with information regarding the competition
design and procedures, form the proceedings for the competition.
Sample Solutions
For systems in the proof/model classes, representative sample solutions must
be emailed to the competition organizers by the
sample solutions deadline.
Use of the TPTP format for
proofs and
finite
interpretations is encouraged.
Proof samples for the FOF proof class must include a proof for
SEU140+2.
Model samples for the FNT model class must include models for
NLP042+1 and
SWV017+1.
The sample solutions must illustrate the use of all inference rules.
An explanation must be provided for any non-obvious features.
For systems competing for the ISA problem category prize in the LTB division,
representative sample proofs or lists of axioms must be emailed to the
competition organizers by the sample solutions
deadline.
Use of the
SZS standards is required.
Samples must include a proof or list for
SEU140+2.
For systems competing for the SMO problem category prize in the LTB division,
representative sample answers must be emailed to the competition organizers
by the sample solutions deadline.
Samples must include an answer for
CSR082+1.
System Requirements
System Properties
Entrants must ensure that their systems execute in a competition-like
environment, and have the following properties.
Entrants are advised to check these properties, and the listed
system checks, well in advance of the
system delivery deadline.
This gives the competition organizers time to help resolve any difficulties
encountered.
Entrants do not have access to the competition computers.
Soundness and Completeness
- Systems must be sound.
At some time before the competition all the systems in the competition
divisions are tested for soundness.
Non-theorems are submitted to the systems in the THF, TFA FOF, CNF, EPR,
UEQ, and LTB divisions, and theorems are submitted to the systems in the
FNT
and EPR divisions.
Finding a proof of a non-theorem or a disproof of a theorem indicates
unsoundness.
If a system fails the soundness testing it must be repaired by
the unsoundness repair deadline or be
withdrawn.
The soundness testing eliminates the possibility of a system simply
delaying for some amount of time and then claiming to have found a
solution.
For systems running on computers supplied by the entrant in the
demonstration division, the entrant must perform the soundness testing
and report the results to the competition organizers.
- Systems do not have to be complete in any sense, including
calculus, search control, implementation, or resource requirements.
- All techniques used must be general purpose, and expected to extend
usefully to new unseen problems.
The precomputation and storage of information about individual TPTP
problems or their solutions is not allowed.
Strategies and strategy selection based on individual TPTP problems
or their solutions are not allowed.
If machine learning procedures are used, the learning must ensure that
sufficient generalization is obtained so that no there is no
specialization to individual problems or their solutions.
- The system's performance must be reproducible by running the system again.
Execution
- Systems must run on a single locally provided standard UNIX computer
(the competition computers).
ATP systems that cannot run on the competition computers can be entered
into the demonstration division.
- Systems must be executable by a single command line,
using an absolute path name for the executable, which might not be in
the current directory.
In the non-LTB divisions the command line arguments are the absolute
path name of a symbolic link as the problem file name, the individual
problem time limit (if required by the entrant), and entrant specified
system switches.
In the LTB division the command line arguments are the absolute path name
of the batch specification file, the overall category time limit (if
required by the entrant), and entrant specified system switches.
No shell features, such as input or output redirection, may be used in the
command line.
No assumptions may be made about the format of file names.
- Systems must be fully automatic, i.e., all command line switches have
to be the same for all problems in each division.
- In the LTB division the systems must attempt the problems in each batch
in the order given in the batch specification file.
Systems may not start any attempt on a problem, including reading the
problem file, before ending the attempt on the preceding problem.
Output
- In the non-LTB divisions all solution output must be to stdout.
In the LTB division all solution output must be to the named output
file for each problem.
- In the LTB division the systems must print SZS notification lines to
stdout when starting and ending work on a problem
(including any cleanup work, such as deleting temporary files).
It is recommended that the result for the problem be output as the
last thing before the ending notification line (note, the result
must also be output to the solution file anyway).
For example
% SZS status Started for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/CSR/CSR075+2.p
... (system churns away, result and solution output to file)
% SZS status Theorem for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/CSR/CSR075+2.p
% SZS status Ended for /home/graph/tptp/TPTP/Problems/CSR/CSR075+2.p
- For each problem, the systems must output a distinguished string
indicating what solution has been found or that no conclusion has been
reached.
The distinguished strings the problem status should use
the
SZS ontology and standards.
For example
% SZS status Theorem for SYN075+1
or
% SZS status GaveUp for SYN075+1
Regardless of whether the SZS status values are used, the distinguished
strings must be different for:
- Proved theorems of FOF problems
(SZS status Theorem)
- Disproved conjectures of FNT problems
(SZS status CounterSatisfiable)
- Unsatisfiable sets of formulae (FOF problems without conjectures) and
unsatisfiable set of clauses (CNF problems)
(SZS status Unsatisfiable)
- Satisfiable sets of formulae (FNT problems without conjectures) and
satisfiable set of clauses (SAT problems)
(SZS status Satisfiable)
The first distinguished string output is accepted as the system's result.
- When outputting proofs/models, the start and end of the proof/model must
be delimited by distinguished strings.
The distinguished strings should use the
SZS ontology and standards.
For example
% SZS output start CNFRefutation for SYN075+1
...
% SZS output end CNFRefutation for SYN075+1
Regardless of whether the SZS output forms are used, the distinguished
strings must be different for:
- Proofs
(SZS output forms Proof, Refutation,
CNFRefutation)
- Models
(SZS output forms Model, FiniteModel,
InfiniteModel, Saturation)
The string specifying the problem status must be output before the start
of a proof/model.
Use of the TPTP format for
proofs and
finite
interpretations is encouraged.
- When outputting answers for the SMO problem category of the LTB division,
the answers must be output using the Tuple or Instantiated answer form
of the
proposed TPTP standard for answer reporting.
Resource Usage
- The systems that run on the competition computers must be
interruptible by a SIGXCPU signal, so that the CPU time limit
can be imposed, and interruptable by a SIGALRM signal,
so that the wall clock time limit can be imposed.
For systems that create multiple processes, the signal is sent first to
the process at the top of the hierarchy, then one second later to all
processes in the hierarchy.
The default action on receiving these signals is to exit (thus complying
with the time limit, as required), but systems may catch the signals
and exit of their own accord.
If a system runs past a time limit this is noticed in the timing
data, and the system is considered to have not solved that problem.
- If an ATP system terminates of its own accord, it may not leave any
temporary or intermediate output files.
If an ATP system is terminated by a SIGXCPU or SIGALRM,
it may not leave any temporary or intermediate output files anywhere other
than in /tmp.
Multiple copies of the ATP systems must be executable concurrently,
in the same (NFS cross mounted) directory.
It is therefore necessary that temporary files have unique names.
- For practical reasons excessive output from an ATP system is not
allowed.
A limit, dependent on the disk space available, is imposed on the amount
of output that can be produced.
The limit is at least 10MB per system.
System Delivery
For systems running on the competition computers, entrants must email an
installation package to the competition organizers by the
system delivery deadline.
(See the systems descriptions page
for these descriptions.)
The installation package must be a .tgz file containing
the system source code, any other files required for installation, and
a ReadMe file.
The ReadMe file must contain:
- Instructions for installation
- Instructions for executing the system, using %s and %d
to indicate where the problem file name and time limit must appear
in the command line.
- The distinguished strings indicating what solution has been found, and
delimiting proofs/models.
The installation procedure may require changing path variables, invoking
make or something similar, etc., but nothing unreasonably
complicated.
All system binaries must be created in the installation process; they
cannot be delivered as part of the installation package.
If the ATP system requires any special software, libraries, etc, which is
not part of a standard installation, the competition organizers must
be told in the system registration.
The system is installed onto the competition computers by the competition
organizers, following the instructions in the ReadMe file.
Installation failures before the system delivery deadline are passed
back to the entrant
(i.e., delivery of the installation package before the system delivery
deadline provides an opportunity to fix things if the installation fails!).
After the system delivery deadline no further changes or late systems are
accepted.
If you are in doubt about your installation package or procedure, please
email the competition organizers.
For systems running on entrant supplied computers in the demonstration
division, entrants must deliver a source code package to the competition
organizers by the start of the competition.
The source code package must be a .tgz file containing
the system source code.
After the competition all competition division systems' source code
is made publically available on the CASC web site.
In the demonstration division, the entrant specifies whether or not
the source code is placed on the CASC web site.
An open source license is
encouraged.
System Execution
Execution of the ATP systems on the competition computers is controlled by a
perl script, provided by the competition organizers.
The jobs are queued onto the computers so that each computer is running
one job at a time.
In the non-LTB divisions, all attempts at the Nth problems in all the
divisions and categories are started before any attempts at the (N+1)th
problems.
In the LTB division all attempts in each category in the division are
started before any attempts at the next category.
During the competition a perl script parses the systems' outputs.
If any of an ATP system's distinguished strings are found then the
time used to that point is noted.
A system has solved a problem iff it outputs its termination string within
the time limit, and a system has produced a proof/model iff it outputs
its end-of-proof/model string within the time limit.
The result and timing data is used to generate an HTML file, and a web
browser is used to display the results.
The execution of the demonstration division systems is supervised by
their entrants.
System Checks
- Check: The ATP system can run on a computer that has the same
configuration as the competition computers.
- Check: The ATP system can be run by an absolute path name for the
executable.
prompt> pwd
/home/tptp
prompt> which MyATPSystem
/home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN075-1.p
SZS status Unsatisfiable for SYN075-1
- Check: The ATP system accepts an absolute path name of a symbolic
link as the problem file name.
prompt> cd /home/tptp/tmp
prompt> ln -s /home/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN075-1.p CCC001.p
prompt> cd /home/tptp
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
- Check: The ATP system makes no assumptions about the format of the
problem file name.
prompt> ln -s /home/tptp/TPTP/Problems/SYN/SYN075-1.p _foo-Blah
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem _foo-Blah
SZS status Unsatisfiable for _foo-Blah
- Check: The ATP system can run under the
TreeLimitedRun program.
prompt> which TreeLimitedRun
/home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 200 400 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 200s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 400s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 4867
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
FINAL WATCH: 147.8 CPU 150.0 WC
- Check: The ATP system's CPU time can be limited using the
TreeLimitedRun program.
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 10 20 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 10s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 20s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 5827
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
CPU time limit exceeded
FINAL WATCH: 10.7 CPU 13.1 WC
- Check: The ATP system's wall clock time can be limited using the
TreeLimitedRun program.
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 20 10 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 20s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 10s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 5827
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
Alarm clock
FINAL WATCH: 9.7 CPU 10.1 WC
- Check: The system outputs a distinguished string when terminating of
its own accord.
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 200 400 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 200s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 400s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 5827
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
FINAL WATCH: 147.8 CPU 150.0 WC
Similar checks should be made for the cases where the system gives up.
- Check: The system outputs distinguished strings at the start and end
of its solution.
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 200 400 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem -output_proof /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 200s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 400s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 5827
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
SZS output start CNFRefutation for CCC001
... acceptable proof/model here ...
SZS output end CNFRefutation for CCC001
FINAL WATCH: 147.8 CPU 150.0 WC
- Check: No temporary or intermediate files are left if the system
terminates of its own accord, and no temporary or intermediate files are
left anywhere other than in /tmp if the system is terminated
by a SIGXCPU or SIGALRM.
Check in the current directory, the ATP system's directory,
the directory where the problem's symbolic link is located,
and the directory where the actual problem file is located.
prompt> pwd
/home/tptp
prompt> /home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 200 400 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 200s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 400s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 13526
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
FINAL WATCH: 147.8 CPU 150.0 WC
prompt> ls /home/tptp
... no temporary or intermediate files left here ...
prompt> ls /home/tptp/bin
... no temporary or intermediate files left here ...
prompt> ls /home/tptp/tmp
... no temporary or intermediate files left here ...
prompt> ls /home/tptp/TPTP/Problems/GRP
... no temporary or intermediate files left here ...
prompt> ls /tmp
... no temporary or intermediate files left here by decent systems ...
- Check: Multiple concurrent executions do not clash.
prompt> (/home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 200 400 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p) & (/home/tptp/bin/TreeLimitedRun -q0 200 400 /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem /home/tptp/tmp/CCC001.p)
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 200s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 400s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 5827
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
TreeLimitedRun: /home/tptp/bin/MyATPSystem
TreeLimitedRun: CPU time limit is 200s
TreeLimitedRun: WC time limit is 400s
TreeLimitedRun: PID is 5829
TreeLimitedRun: ----------------------------------------------------------
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
FINAL WATCH: 147.8 CPU 150.0 WC
SZS status Unsatisfiable for CCC001
FINAL WATCH: 147.8 CPU 150.0 WC