Search

When faced with the question of how to represent properties in a formal proof system any user has to make design decisions. We have proved three of the theorems from Maskin's 2004 survey article on Auction Theory using the Isabelle/HOL system, and we have produced verified code for combinatorial Vickrey auctions. A fundamental question in this was how to represent some basic concepts: since set theory is available inside Isabelle/HOL, when introducing new definitions there is often the issue of balancing the amount of set-theoretical objects and of objects expressed using entities which are more typical of higher order logic such as functions or lists. Likewise, a user has often to answer the question whether to use a constructive or a non-constructive definition. Such decisions have consequences for the proof development and the usability of the formalization. For instance, sets are usually closer to the representation that economists would use and recognize, while the other objects are closer to the extraction of computational content. In this paper we give examples of the advantages and disadvantages for these approaches and their relationships. In addition, we present the corresponding Isabelle library of definitions and theorems, most prominently those dealing with relations and quotients., Comment: Preprint of a paper accepted for the forthcoming CICM 2014 conference (cicm-conference.org/2014): S.M. Watt et al. (Eds.): CICM 2014, LNAI 8543, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014. 16 pages, 1 figure

Using mechanised reasoning we prove that combinatorial Vickrey auctions are soundly specified in that they associate a unique outcome (allocation and transfers) to any valid input (bids). Having done so, we auto-generate verified executable code from the formally defined auction. This removes a source of error in implementing the auction design. We intend to use formal methods to verify new auction designs. Here, our contribution is to introduce and demonstrate the use of formal methods for auction verification in the familiar setting of a well-known auction.

The ForMaRE project applies formal mathematical reasoning to economics. We seek to increase confidence in economics' theoretical results, to aid in discovering new results, and to foster interest in formal methods, i.e. computer-aided reasoning, within economics. To formal methods, we seek to contribute user experience feedback from new audiences, as well as new challenge problems. In the first project year, we continued earlier game theory studies but then focused on auctions, where we are building a toolbox of formalisations, and have started to study matching and financial risk. In parallel to conducting research that connects economics and formal methods, we organise events and provide infrastructure to connect both communities, from fostering mutual awareness to targeted matchmaking. These efforts extend beyond economics, towards generally enabling domain experts to use mechanised reasoning., Comment: Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics, 8--12 July, Bath, UK. Published as number 7961 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer

Novel auction schemes are constantly being designed. Their design has significant consequences for the allocation of goods and the revenues generated. But how to tell whether a new design has the desired properties, such as efficiency, i.e. allocating goods to those bidders who value them most? We say: by formal, machine-checked proofs. We investigated the suitability of the Isabelle, Theorema, Mizar, and Hets/CASL/TPTP theorem provers for reproducing a key result of auction theory: Vickrey's 1961 theorem on the properties of second-price auctions. Based on our formalisation experience, taking an auction designer's perspective, we give recommendations on what system to use for formalising auctions, and outline further steps towards a complete auction theory toolbox., Comment: Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics, 8-12 July, Bath, UK. Published as number 7961 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer

In logic there is a clear concept of what constitutes a proof and what not. A proof is essentially defined as a finite sequence of formulae which are either axioms or derived by proof rules from formulae earlier in the sequence. Sociologically, however, it is more difficult to say what should constitute a proof and what not. In this paper we will look at different forms of proofs and try to clarify the concept of proof in the wider meaning of the term. This has implications on how proofs should be represented formally., Comment: 10 pages, To appear in The 9th International Conference on Mathematical Knowledge Management: MKM 2010

The goal of this paper is to extend classical logic with a generalized notion of inductive definition supporting positive and negative induction, to investigate the properties of this logic, its relationships to other logics in the area of non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and deductive databases, and to show its application for knowledge representation by giving a typology of definitional knowledge., Comment: 9 pages to be presented at NMR2000, Breckenridge, April 2000