Clause.proof_depth counts ESA-steps as 0

[abentkamp]

Clause.proof_depth / Proof.Step.inferences_perfomed considers only Inference or Simplifcation steps, but not Esa steps (e.g. Avatar). This might confuse the heuristics using it.

[c-cube]

Hmm if we solve #64 (maybe with a custom way of handling a <= [a]?) then we can make AVATAR an inference, I guess.
I don't think this should impact the heuristics much?

[abentkamp]

I don't know how large the impact is on heuristics, but I saw that it confused @petarvukmirovic who wrote an assertion assert((C.proof_depth c) <= C.proof_depth new_c);.

Moreover, I am currently adding new kinds of step, e.g. a CNF step and a term conversion step. Maybe I shouldn't do that?

[c-cube]

I think more kinds of steps might be good, if you handle the TSTP output and llproof checker properly (which I assume is the whole point anyway).
In that case AVATAR could get its own kind of proof step that refines "inference"?

[abentkamp]

I don't know if Avatar really needs it's own kind of step because if ϕ <= [ψ] is interpreted as ϕ ∨ ¬ ψ, then it is not even a real Esa step.

[abentkamp]

What do you mean by "refines inference"? Right now it looks like this:

type kind =
  | Intro of source * role
  | Inference of rule * tag list
  | Simplification of rule * tag list
  | Cnf of skolem list
  | Conv (** Conversion of different term datatypes *)
  | Esa of rule * tag list
  | Trivial (** trivial, or trivial within theories *)
  | Define of ID.t * source (** definition *)
  | By_def of ID.t (** following from the def of ID *)

Would you prefer this?

  | Inference of sort * rule * tag list

where sort can be CNF, Conv, Esa, etc.?

[c-cube]

I mean, it's an inference, but the llprover must handle it differently (namely, by not using opaque for the assumptions, otherwise it's not obvious why it's a tautology). It could actually be "trivial" for these clauses, and a regular inference for the boolean clause that embeds the actual splitting rule :-)