Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Étienne Payet

Publications and source records attributed to Étienne Payet.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Case study: solving P-99 with LPTP and an LLM

Ninety-Nine Prolog Problems (P-99) is a famous set of Prolog exercises. We solved the first thirty three just by prompting an LLM (Large Language Model). We used Claude from Anthropic. By solved we mean: generate the Prolog code and a test file, run the tests and check whether they pass, then formally prove types, groundness, termination, uniqueness, existence and also sometimes functional correctness with LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover). Hence our approach is an experiment in vibe-coding/vericoding of P-99. It is a vibe-coding experiment because we started from informal specifications written in English and let Claude generate the Prolog code. It also fits within vericoding because the LLM proved reliability guarantees on the generated Prolog code. Claude wrote 58 logic procedures, 508 tests, 257 lemmas for a total of 11800 proof lines. We manually checked each file generated by the LLM. We checked the Prolog code, ran the tests, examined the logical statements generated by Claude and proof-checked Claude's proofs with LPTP. This paper describes this experiment and provides the main details so that it can be reproduced by the interested reader.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2026

Case study: proving sqrt(2) irrational with LPTP and an LLM

We present the interactions with an LLM (Large Language Model) aiming at proving that the square root of 2 is not a rational number in an LP (Logic Programming) context. We start from a few basic pure logic programming predicate definitions. We rely on the LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover) system for stating and proving properties about logic programs. As the proof language of LPTP is based on natural deduction, the proofs are human readable. In our case study, we sketch in LPTP the usual proof showing the irrationality of the square root of 2. Then we describe the interactions we had with the LLM. We end up with a complete formal proof, partially generated by an LLM and fully proof-checked by LPTP.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2026

Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Termination

This report contains the proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Termination (WST 2026), which was held in Lisbon on July 25. It was affiliated with the 13th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2026), which was part of the Federated Logic Conference (FLoC 2026).

cs.LO↗
arXiv2026

Automated Theorem Proving for Prolog Verification

LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover) is an interactive natural-deduction-based theorem prover for pure Prolog programs with negation as failure, unification with the occurs check, and a restricted but extensible set of built-in predicates. With LPTP, one can formally prove termination and partial correctness of such Prolog programs. LPTP was designed in the mid-1990's by Robert F. Staerk. It is written in ISO-Prolog and comes with an Emacs user-interface. From a theoretical point of view, in his publications about LPTP, Staerk associates a set of first-order axioms IND(P) to the considered Prolog program P. IND(P) contains the Clark's equality theory for P, definitions of success, failure and termination for each user-defined logic procedure in P, axioms relating these three points of view, and an axiom schema for proving inductive properties. LPTP is thus a dedicated proof editor where these axioms are hard-wired. We propose to translate these axioms as first-order formulas (FOFs), and apply automated theorem provers to check the property of interest. Using FOF as an intermediary language, we experiment the use of automated theorem provers for Prolog program verification. We evaluate the approach over a benchmark of about 400 properties of Prolog programs from the library available with LPTP. Both the compiler which generates a set of FOF files from a given input Prolog program together with its properties and the benchmark are publicly available.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2015

Concolic Testing in Logic Programming

Software testing is one of the most popular validation techniques in the software industry. Surprisingly, we can only find a few approaches to testing in the context of logic programming. In this paper, we introduce a systematic approach for dynamic testing that combines both concrete and symbolic execution. Our approach is fully automatic and guarantees full path coverage when it terminates. We prove some basic properties of our technique and illustrate its practical usefulness through a prototype implementation.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2014

Non-Termination Analysis of Java Bytecode

We introduce a fully automated static analysis that takes a sequential Java bytecode program P as input and attempts to prove that there exists an infinite execution of P. The technique consists in compiling P into a constraint logic program P_CLP and in proving non-termination of P_CLP; when P consists of instructions that are exactly compiled into constraints, the non-termination of P_CLP entails that of P. Our approach can handle method calls; to the best of our knowledge, it is the first static approach for Java bytecode able to prove the existence of infinite recursions. We have implemented our technique inside the Julia analyser. We have compared the results of Julia on a set of 113 programs with those provided by AProVE and Invel, the only freely usable non-termination analysers comparable to ours that we are aware of. Only Julia could detect non-termination due to infinite recursion.

cs.PL↗