Refine
Year of publication
- 1996 (113) (remove)
Document Type
- Preprint (70)
- Report (23)
- Article (9)
- Master's Thesis (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Diploma Thesis (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Keywords
- AG-RESY (4)
- COMOKIT (4)
- Case-Based Reasoning (3)
- CoMo-Kit (3)
- PARO (3)
- Fallbasiertes Planen (2)
- SKALP (2)
- case-based planning (2)
- Abstraction (1)
- Boltzmann Equation (1)
Faculty / Organisational entity
We present first steps towards fully automated deduction that merely requiresthe user to submit proof problems and pick up results. Essentially, this necessi-tates the automation of the crucial step in the use of a deduction system, namelychoosing and configuring an appropriate search-guiding heuristic. Furthermore,we motivate why learning capabilities are pivotal for satisfactory performance.The infrastructure for automating both the selection of a heuristic and integra-tion of learning are provided in form of an environment embedding the "core"deduction system.We have conducted a case study in connection with a deduction system basedon condensed detachment. Our experiments with a fully automated deductionsystem 'AutoCoDe' have produced remarkable results. We substantiate Au-toCoDe's encouraging achievements with a comparison with the renowned the-orem prover Otter. AutoCoDe outperforms Otter even when assuming veryfavorable conditions for Otter.
Evolving Combinators
(1996)
One of the many abilities that distinguish a mathematician from an auto-mated deduction system is to be able to offer appropriate expressions based onintuition and experience that are substituted for existentially quantified variablesso as to simplify the problem at hand substantially. We propose to simulate thisability with a technique called genetic programming for use in automated deduc-tion. We apply this approach to problems of combinatory logic. Our experimen-tal results show that the approach is viable and actually produces very promisingresults. A comparison with the renowned theorem prover Otter underlines theachievements.This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
We present a concept for an automated theorem prover that employs a searchcontrol based on ideas from several areas of artificial intelligence (AI). The combi-nation of case-based reasoning, several similarity concepts, a cooperation conceptof distributed AI and reactive planning enables a system using our concept tolearn form previous successful proof attempts. In a kind of bootstrapping processeasy problems are used to solve more and more complicated ones.We provide case studies from two domains of interest in pure equationaltheorem proving taken from the TPTP library. These case studies show thatan instantiation of our architecture achieves a high grade of automation andoutperforms state-of-the-art conventional theorem provers.
We investigate the usage of so-called inference rights. We point out the prob-lems arising from the inflexibility of existing approaches to heuristically controlthe search of automated deduction systems, and we propose the application ofinference rights that are well-suited for controlling the search more flexibly. More-over, inference rights allow for a mechanism of "partial forgetting" of facts thatis not realizable in the most controlling aproaches. We study theoretical founda-tions of inference rights as well as the integration of inference rights into alreadyexisting inference systems. Furthermore, we present possibilities to control suchmodified inference systems in order to gain efficiency. Finally, we report onexperimental results obtained in the area of condensed detachment.The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
Planning for realistic problems in a static and deterministic environment with complete information faces exponential search spaces and, more often than not, should produce plans comprehensible for the user. This article introduces new planning strategies inspired by proof planning examples in order to tackle the search-space-problem and the structured-plan-problem. Island planning and refinement as well as subproblem refinement are integrated into a general planning framework and some exemplary control knowledge suitable for proof planning is given.
Toying with Jordan matrices
(1996)