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.
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 LTB - Large Theory Batch - division has been added.
Each category of this division uses a theory in which there are many
functors and predicates, many axioms of which typically only a few are
required for the proof of a theorem, and many theorems to be proved
using a common core set of axioms.
The problems of each category are provided to the ATP systems as a batch,
allowing the ATP systems to load and preprocess the common core set of
axioms just once, and to share logical and control results between
proof searches.
- The FPE category - FOF Pure Equality - has been split off from the
FEQ category.
Cancelled due to too few eligible problems.
- The CNF proof class and SAT model class have been discontinued.
- The distinguished strings output to
indicate what solution has been found, or that no conclusion has been
reached, must be different for:
- Proved conjectures of FOF problems
- Disproved conjectures of FOF problems
- Unsatisfiable sets of formulae (FOF problems without conjectures) and
unsatisfiable set of clauses (CNF problems)
- Satisfiable sets of formulae (FOF problems without conjectures) and
satisfiable set of clauses (CNF problems)
- The distinguished strings output to
delimit the start and end of proofs/models must be different for:
- Proofs
(SZS output forms Proof, Refutation,
CNFRefutation)
- Models
(SZS output forms Model, FiniteModel,
InfiniteModel, Saturation)
- An open source license is explicitly
encouraged for entered systems.
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 analyze, 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.
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.
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.
- The FOF division:
First-order form non-propositional theorems (axioms with a provable
conjecture).
The FOF division has three problem categories:
- The FNE category: FOF with no Equality
- The FEQ category: FOF with some (but not pure) Equality
- The FPE category: FOF Pure Equality
Cancelled due to too few eligible problems.
- The FNT division:
First-order form non-propositional non-theorems (axioms with a
counter-satisfiable 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:
Mixed clause normal form really non-propositional theorems
(unsatisfiable clause sets).
Mixed means Horn and non-Horn problems, with or without
equality, but not unit equality problems (see the UEQ division below).
Really non-propositional means with an infinite Herbrand
universe.
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 SAT division:
Clause normal form really non-propositional non-theorems
(satisfiable clause sets).
The SAT division has two problem categories:
- The SNE category: SAT with No Equality
- The SEQ category: SAT with Equality
- The EPR division:
Effectively propositional clause normal form theorems and non-theorems
(clause sets).
Effectively propositional means non-propositional with a
finite Herbrand Universe.
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 to the ATP systems in
batches.
A large theory has many functors and predicates, has many
axioms of which typically only a few are required for the proof of a
theorem, and many theorems to be proved using a common core set of
axioms (but not all of the common core axioms are in every problem).
The batch presentation allows the ATP systems to load and preprocess
the common core set of axioms just once, and to share logical and control
results between proof searches.
The LTB division has three 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 +6 versions will not be used.
- 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.
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 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 results are presented along with the competition divisions'
results, but may not be comparable with those results.
The systems are not ranked and no prizes are awarded.
Infrastructure
Computers
The non-LTB division computers are
Dell computers, each having:
- Intel Core 2 Duo E4600, 2.4GHz CPU
- 1GB RAM
- Linux 2.6 operating system
The LTB division computers are
Hewlett-Packard computers, each having:
- Intel Pentium 4, 2.80GHz CPU
- 1GB RAM
- Linux 2.6 operating system
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 difficulty ratings might also be eligible
in some divisions.
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.
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 have to 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 is sufficient CPU time
available to run the ATP systems on this minimal number of problems).
The minimal numbers of problems are used in determining the
CPU time limit 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 CPU time limit,
according to the following relationship:
NumberOfComputers * TimeAllocated
NumberOfProblems = ---------------------------------
NumberOfATPSystems * CPUTimeLimit
It is a lower bound on the total number of problems because it assumes that
every system uses all of the CPU time limit for each problem.
Since some solution attempts succeed before the CPU time
limit is reached, more problems can be used.
The numbers of problems used in each division and problem category is
(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, non-LTB divisions
In order to ensure that no system receives an advantage or
disadvantage due to the specific presentation of the problems in the TPTP,
the tptp2X utility (distributed with the TPTP) is used to:
- rename all predicate and function symbols to meaningless symbols
- randomly reorder the clauses and literals in CNF problems
- randomly reorder the formulae in FOF problems
- randomly reverse the equalities in the UEQ problems
- remove equality axioms that are not needed by the ATP systems
- add equality axioms that are needed by the ATP systems
- output the problems in the formats required by the ATP systems
(The clause type information, one of axiom,
hypothesis, or conjecture, may be included
in the final output of each formula.)
Further, 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, where CCC is the
division or category name, and with NNN running from 001
to the number of problems in the respective 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 tptp2X transformations applied.
However, the original file names can be retained.
Problem Preparation, LTB division
The problems are in their original TPTP form in the TPTP language with
include directives (included files are found relative to the
TPTP environment variable, which will be set).
There is consistent symbol usage between problems in each category, but
there may not be consistent axiom naming between problems (although there
obviously is for axioms from the same included file).
Resource Limits
In the competition divisions, CPU and wall clock time limits are imposed.
A minimal CPU time limit of 240 seconds per problem is used.
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.
In the non-LTB competition divisions the time limits are imposed individually
on each solution attempt.
In the LTB division the total time limits (the individual time limits
multiplied by the number of problems) are imposed on each category.
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.
System Evaluation
For each ATP system, for each problem, three items of data are recorded:
whether or not a solution was found,
the CPU time taken,
and whether or not a solution (proof or model) was output.
The systems are ranked at the division level from this performance data.
All the divisions have an assurance ranking class, ranked according to
the number of problems solved (a "yes" output, giving an assurance of
the existence of a proof/model).
The FOF, FNT, and LTB divisions additionally 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 CPU time over solved problems.
All systems are automatically ranked in the assurance classes, and are
ranked in the proof/model classes if they output acceptable proofs/models.
A system that wins a proof/model ranking class might also win the
corresponding assurance ranking class.
In the competition divisions class winners are announced and prizes are awarded.
- Articulate Software
has provided $3000 of
prize money for the SMO category of the LTB division.
(Employees of Articulate Sofware, its subcontractors, and funded partners,
are not eligible for this prize money.)
In each ranking class the winner will receive $750, the second place $500,
and the third place $250.
- Cycorp
has provided €200 of
prize money for the CYC category of the LTB division.
There are two prizes, one for completeness (most problem solved) and
one for efficiency (a measure of solution rate).
Details are
available online.
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.
- In the LTB division the proofs must be in TPTP format.
- 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.
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, 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
).
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 have to 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.
However, 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.
The division winners from the previous CASC
are automatically entered into their divisions, to provide benchmarks
against which progress can be judged.
It is assumed that each entrant has read the WWW pages related
to the competition, and has complied with the competition rules.
Non-compliance with the rules could lead to disqualification.
A "catch-all" rule is used to deal with any unforseen 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.
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.
- Expected competition performance. This section makes some
predictions about the performance of the ATP system in each of the
divisions and categories in which the system 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 before the
sample solutions deadline.
Proof samples for the FOF and LTB proof classes must include a proof for
SYN075+1.
Model samples for the the FNT model class must include models for
MGT019+2 and
SWV010+1.
The sample solutions must illustrate the use of all inference rules.
A key must be provided if any non-obvious abbreviations for inference rules
or other information are used.
System Requirements
System Properties
Systems are required to have the following properties:
- Systems have to 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 fully automatic, i.e., any command line switches have
to be the same for all problems.
- 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 FOF, CNF, EPR, UEQ,
and LTB divisions, and theorems are submitted to the systems in the FNT,
SAT 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.
- 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 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 a file containing pairs of absolute problem file names and absolute
output file names (where the output for the problem must be written),
the time limit (if required by the entrant), and entrant specified
system switches.
LTBSampleInput1 and
LTBSampleInput2 are examples
of the LTB problem-solution list files (for my directory structure).
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 the problem file name.
- The systems that run on the competition computers have to be
interruptable 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.
- 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 (output to stdout and stderr
will be redirected to /dev/null).
- When terminating an attempt to solve a problem, the systems have to
output a distinguished string (specified by the entrant), indicating
what solution has been found or that no conclusion has been reached.
The distinguished strings the problem status should use
the
SZS ontology, in a line starting SZS status.
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
claimed result.
- When outputing proofs/models for the proof/model ranking classes, the
start and end of the proof/model must be delimited by distinguished
strings (specified by the entrant).
The distinguished strings should specify the precise output form named
in the SZS ontology, using lines starting SZS output start
and SZS output end.
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.
- If an ATP system terminates of its own accord, it may not leave any
temporary or other output files.
If an ATP system is terminated by a SIGXCPU or SIGALRM,
it may not leave any temporary or other output files anywhere other
than in /tmp.
Multiple copies of the ATP systems have to be executable concurrently on
different machines but in the same (NFS cross mounted) directory.
It is therefore necessary to avoid producing temporary files that do not
have unique names, with respect to the machines and other processes.
An adequate solution is a file name including the host machine name and
the process id.
- 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.
- The precomputation and storage of any information specifically about TPTP
problems is not allowed.
Strategies and strategy selection based on the characteristics of a few
specific TPTP problems are not allowed, i.e., strategies and strategy
selection must be general purpose and expected to extend usefully to
new unseen problems.
If automatic strategy learning procedures are used, the learning must
ensure that sufficient generalization is obtained, and that no learning
at the individual problem level is performed.
- The system's performance must be reproducible by running the system again.
Entrants must ensure
that their systems execute in a competition-like environment, according to
the system checks.
Entrants are advised to perform these checks well in advance of the
system delivery deadline.
This gives the competition organizers time to help resolve any difficulties
encountered.
Entrants will not have access to the competition computers.
System Delivery
For systems running on the competition computers, entrants must email an
installation package to the competition organizers by the
system delivery deadline.
The installation package must be a .tar.gz 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
- Format of problem files, in the form of tptp2X
format and transformation parameters.
- Command line, using %s and %d to indicate
where the problem file name and CPU time limit must appear.
- The distinguished strings output.
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.
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 WWW site.
In the demonstration division, the entrant specifies whether or not
the source code is placed on the CASC WWW 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.
Should we allow restarts if a system dies in the middle of a category?
During the competition a perl script parses the systems' outputs.
If any of an ATP system's distinguished strings are found then the CPU
time used to that point is noted.
A system has solved a problem iff it outputs its termination string within
the CPU time limit, and a system has produced a proof/model iff it outputs
its end-of-proof/model string within the CPU time limit.
The result and timing data is used to generate an HTML file, and a WWW
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.
The competition computers' configuration, obtained from uname,
is:
> uname -mp -sr
Linux 2.6.25.9-76.fc9.i686 i686 i686
If the ATP system requires any special software, libraries, etc, which
not part of a standard installation, the competition organizers must
be told in the system registration.
- 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 other files are left if the system terminates
of its own accord, and no temporary or other 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 other files left here ...
prompt> ls /home/tptp/bin
... no temporary or other files left here ...
prompt> ls /home/tptp/tmp
... no temporary or other files left here ...
prompt> ls /home/tptp/TPTP/Problems/GRP
... no temporary or other files left here ...
prompt> ls /tmp
... no temporary or other 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