The reasoning power of human-oriented plan-based reasoning systems is primarilyderived from their domain-specific problem solving knowledge. Such knowledge is, how-ever, intrinsically incomplete. In order to model the human ability of adapting existingmethods to new situations we present in this work a declarative approach for represent-ing methods, which can be adapted by so-called meta-methods. Since apparently thesuccess of this approach relies on the existence of general and strong meta-methods,we describe several meta-methods of general interest in detail by presenting the prob-lem solving process of two familiar classes of mathematical problems. These examplesshould illustrate our philosophy of proof planning as well: besides planning with thecurrent repertoire of methods, the repertoire of methods evolves with experience inthat new ones are created by meta-methods which modify existing ones.
We present a new criterion for confluence of (possibly) non-terminating left-linear term rewriting systems. The criterion is based on certain strong joinabil-ity properties of parallel critical pairs . We show how this criterion relates toother well-known results, consider some special cases and discuss some possibleextensions.
In this paper we are interested in an algebraic specification language that (1) allowsfor sufficient expessiveness, (2) admits a well-defined semantics, and (3) allows for formalproofs. To that end we study clausal specifications over built-in algebras. To keep thingssimple, we consider built-in algebras only that are given as the initial model of a Hornclause specification. On top of this Horn clause specification new operators are (partially)defined by positive/negative conditional equations. In the first part of the paper wedefine three types of semantics for such a hierarchical specification: model-theoretic,operational, and rewrite-based semantics. We show that all these semantics coincide,provided some restrictions are met. We associate a distinguished algebra A spec to ahierachical specification spec. This algebra is initial in the class of all models of spec.In the second part of the paper we study how to prove a theorem (a clause) valid in thedistinguished algebra A spec . We first present an abstract framework for inductive theoremprovers. Then we instantiate this framework for proving inductive validity. Finally wegive some examples to show how concrete proofs are carried out.This report was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 314 (D4-Projekt)
We present an inference system for clausal theorem proving w.r.t. various kinds of inductivevalidity in theories specified by constructor-based positive/negative-conditional equations. The reductionrelation defined by such equations has to be (ground) confluent, but need not be terminating. Our con-structor-based approach is well-suited for inductive theorem proving in the presence of partially definedfunctions. The proposed inference system provides explicit induction hypotheses and can be instantiatedwith various wellfounded induction orderings. While emphasizing a well structured clear design of theinference system, our fundamental design goal is user-orientation and practical usefulness rather thantheoretical elegance. The resulting inference system is comprehensive and relatively powerful, but requiresa sophisticated concept of proof guidance, which is not treated in this paper.This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 314 (D4-Projekt)
Patdex is an expert system which carries out case-based reasoning for the fault diagnosis of complex machines. It is integrated in the Moltke workbench for technical diagnosis, which was developed at the university of Kaiserslautern over the past years, Moltke contains other parts as well, in particular a model-based approach; in Patdex where essentially the heuristic features are located. The use of cases also plays an important role for knowledge acquisition. In this paper we describe Patdex from a principal point of view and embed its main concepts into a theoretical framework.
In this report we give an overview of the development of our new Waldmeisterprover for equational theories. We elaborate a systematic stepwise design process, startingwith the inference system for unfailing Knuth - Bendix completion and ending up with animplementation which avoids the main diseases today's provers suffer from: overindulgencein time and space.Our design process is based on a logical three - level system model consisting of basicoperations for inference step execution, aggregated inference machine, and overall controlstrategy. Careful analysis of the inference system for unfailing completion has revealed thecrucial points responsible for time and space consumption. For the low level of our model,we introduce specialized data structures and algorithms speeding up the running system andcutting it down in size - both by one order of magnitude compared with standard techniques.Flexible control of the mid - level aggregation inside the resulting prover is made possible by acorresponding set of parameters. Experimental analysis shows that this flexibility is a pointof high importance. We go on with some implementation guidelines we have found valuablein the field of deduction.The resulting new prover shows that our design approach is promising. We compare oursystem's throughput with that of an established system and finally demonstrate how twovery hard problems could be solved by Waldmeister.
We show how to prove ground confluence of term rewrite relations that areinduced by reductive systems of clausal rewrite rules. According to a well-knowncritical pair criterion it suffices for such systems to prove ground joinability ofa suitable set of 'critical clauses'. We outline how the latter can be done in asystematic fashion, using mathematical induction as a key concept of reasoning.
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.
We present a way to describe Reason Maintenance Systems using the sameformalism for justification based as well as for assumption based approaches.This formalism uses labelled formulae and thus is a special case of Gabbay'slabelled deductive systems. Since our approach is logic based, we are able toget a semantics oriented description of the systems in question.Instead of restricting ourselves to e.g. propositional Horn formulae, as wasdone in the past, we admit arbitrary logics. This enables us to characterizesystems as a whole, including both the reason maintenance component and theproblem solver, nevertheless maintaining a separation between the basic logicand the part that describes the label propagation. The possibility to freely varythe basic logic enables us to not only describe various existing systems, but canhelp in the design of completely new ones.We also show, that it is possible to implement systems based directly on ourlabelled logic and plead for "incremental calculi" crafted to attack undecidablelogics.Furthermore it is shown that the same approach can be used to handledefault reasoning, if the propositional labels are upgraded to first order.
A lot of the human ability to prove hard mathematical theorems can be ascribedto a problem-specific problem solving know-how. Such knowledge is intrinsicallyincomplete. In order to prove related problems human mathematicians, however,can go beyond the acquired knowledge by adapting their know-how to new relatedproblems. These two aspects, having rich experience and extending it by need, can besimulated in a proof planning framework: the problem-specific reasoning knowledge isrepresented in form of declarative planning operators, called methods; since these aredeclarative, they can be mechanically adapted to new situations by so-called meta-methods. In this contribution we apply this framework to two prominent proofs intheorem proving, first, we present methods for proving the ground completeness ofbinary resolution, which essentially correspond to key lemmata, and then, we showhow these methods can be reused for the proof of the ground completeness of lockresolution.