### Refine

#### Document Type

- Preprint (17) (remove)

#### Language

- English (17) (remove)

#### Keywords

- Case-Based Reasoning (2)
- EBG (1)
- Fallbasiertes Schliessen (1)
- Fallbasiertes Schließen (1)
- Similarity Assessment (1)
- analogy (1)
- automated proof planner (1)
- case-based reasoning (1)
- concept representation (1)
- planning (1)

This paper addresses two modi of analogical reasoning. Thefirst modus is based on the explicit representation of the justificationfor the analogical inference. The second modus is based on the repre-sentation of typical instances by concept structures. The two kinds ofanalogical inferences rely on different forms of relevance knowledge thatcause non-monotonicity. While the uncertainty and non-monotonicity ofanalogical inferences is not questioned, a semantic characterization ofanalogical reasoning has not been given yet. We introduce a minimalmodel semantics for analogical inference with typical instances.

The paper addresses two problems of comprehensible proof presentation, the hierarchically structured presentation at the level of proof methods and different presentation styles of construction proofs. It provides solutions for these problems that can make use of proof plans generated by an automated proof planner.

In recent years several computational systems and techniques fortheorem proving by analogy have been developed. The obvious prac-tical question, however, as to whether and when to use analogy hasbeen neglected badly in these developments. This paper addresses thisquestion, identifies situations where analogy is useful, and discussesthe merits of theorem proving by analogy in these situations. Theresults can be generalized to other domains.

The amount of user interaction is the prime cause of costs in interactiveprogram verification. This paper describes an internal analogy techniquethat reuses subproofs in the verification of state-based specifications. Itidentifies common patterns of subproofs and their justifications in orderto reuse these subproofs; thus significant savings on the number of userinteractions in a verification proof are achievable.

Proof planning is an alternative methodology to classical automated theorem prov-ing based on exhausitve search that was first introduced by Bundy [8]. The goal ofthis paper is to extend the current realm of proof planning to cope with genuinelymathematical problems such as the well-known limit theorems first investigated for au-tomated theorem proving by Bledsoe. The report presents a general methodology andcontains ideas that are new for proof planning and theorem proving, most importantlyideas for search control and for the integration of domain knowledge into a general proofplanning framework. We extend proof planning by employing explicit control-rules andsupermethods. We combine proof planning with constraint solving. Experiments showthe influence of these mechanisms on the performance of a proof planner. For instance,the proofs of LIM+ and LIM* have been automatically proof planned in the extendedproof planner OMEGA.In a general proof planning framework we rationally reconstruct the proofs of limittheorems for real numbers (IR) that were first computed by the special-purpose programreported in [6]. Compared with this program, the rational reconstruction has severaladvantages: It relies on a general-purpose problem solver; it provides high-level, hi-erarchical representations of proofs that can be expanded to checkable ND-proofs; itemploys declarative contol knowledge that is modularly organized.

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.