### Filtern

#### Erscheinungsjahr

#### Dokumenttyp

- Dissertation (1190)
- Preprint (1178)
- Bericht (473)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (223)
- Teil eines Periodikums (208)
- Masterarbeit (82)
- Arbeitspapier (79)
- Diplomarbeit (29)
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (26)
- Studienarbeit (20)

#### Sprache

- Englisch (2254)
- Deutsch (1327)
- Spanisch (4)
- Mehrsprachig (1)

#### Schlagworte

- AG-RESY (64)
- PARO (31)
- Stadtplanung (26)
- Modellierung (22)
- Case-Based Reasoning (20)
- Simulation (18)
- Visualisierung (18)
- SKALP (16)
- CoMo-Kit (15)
- Wavelet (14)

#### Fachbereich / Organisatorische Einheit

- Fachbereich Mathematik (1035)
- Fachbereich Informatik (792)
- Fachbereich Chemie (298)
- Fachbereich Physik (261)
- Fachbereich Maschinenbau und Verfahrenstechnik (225)
- Fraunhofer (ITWM) (222)
- Fachbereich Sozialwissenschaften (199)
- Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik (118)
- Fachbereich Biologie (100)
- Fachbereich ARUBI (83)

This paper introduces a multi-valued variant of higher-order resolution and provesit correct and complete with respect to a natural multi-valued variant of Henkin'sgeneral model semantics. This resolution method is parametric in the number of truthvalues as well as in the particular choice of the set of connectives (given by arbitrarytruth tables) and even substitutional quantifiers. In the course of the completenessproof we establish a model existence theorem for this logical system. The workreported in this paper provides a basis for developing higher-order mechanizationsfor many non-classical logics.

Coloring terms (rippling) is a technique developed for inductive theorem proving which uses syntactic differences of terms to guide the proof search. Annotations (colors) to terms are used to maintain this information. This technique has several advantages, e.g. it is highly goal oriented and involves little search. In this paper we give a general formalization of coloring terms in a higher-order setting. We introduce a simply-typed lambda calculus with color annotations and present an appropriate (pre-)unification algorithm. Our work is a formal basis to the implementation of rippling in a higher-order setting which is required e.g. in case of middle-out reasoning. Another application is in the construction of natural language semantics, where the color annotations rule out linguistically invalid readings that are possible using standard higher-order unification.

In this paper we will present a design model (in the sense of KADS) for the domain of technical diagnosis. Based on this we will describe the fully implemented expert system shell MOLTKE 3.0, which integrates common knowledge acquisition methods with techniques developed in the fields of Model-Based Diagnosis and Machine Learning, especially Case-Based Reasoning.

We first show that ground term-rewriting systems can be completed in apolynomial number of rewriting steps, if the appropriate data structure for termsis used. We then apply this result to study the lengths of critical pair proofs innon-ground systems, and obtain bounds on the lengths of critical pair proofsin the non-ground case. We show how these bounds depend on the types ofinference steps that are allowed in the proofs.

The well-known and powerful proof principle by well-founded induction says that for verifying \(\forall x : P (x)\) for some property \(P\) it suffices to show \(\forall x : [[\forall y < x :P (y)] \Rightarrow P (x)] \) , provided \(<\) is a well-founded partial ordering on the domainof interest. Here we investigate a more general formulation of this proof principlewhich allows for a kind of parameterized partial orderings \(<_x\) which naturallyarises in some cases. More precisely, we develop conditions under which theparameterized proof principle \(\forall x : [[\forall y <_x x : P (y)] \Rightarrow P (x)]\) is sound in thesense that \(\forall x : [[\forall y <_x x : P (y)] \Rightarrow P (x)] \Rightarrow \forall x : P (x)\) holds, and givecounterexamples demonstrating that these conditions are indeed essential.

We study the combination of the following already known ideas for showing confluence ofunconditional or conditional term rewriting systems into practically more useful confluence criteria forconditional systems: Our syntactic separation into constructor and non-constructor symbols, Huet's intro-duction and Toyama's generalization of parallel closedness for non-noetherian unconditional systems, theuse of shallow confluence for proving confluence of noetherian and non-noetherian conditional systems, theidea that certain kinds of limited confluence can be assumed for checking the fulfilledness or infeasibilityof the conditions of conditional critical pairs, and the idea that (when termination is given) only primesuperpositions have to be considered and certain normalization restrictions can be applied for the sub-stitutions fulfilling the conditions of conditional critical pairs. Besides combining and improving alreadyknown methods, we present the following new ideas and results: We strengthen the criterion for overlayjoinable noetherian systems, and, by using the expressiveness of our syntactic separation into constructorand non-constructor symbols, we are able to present criteria for level confluence that are not criteria forshallow confluence actually and also able to weaken the severe requirement of normality (stiffened withleft-linearity) in the criteria for shallow confluence of noetherian and non-noetherian conditional systems tothe easily satisfied requirement of quasi-normality. Finally, the whole paper also gives a practically usefuloverview of the syntactic means for showing confluence of conditional term rewriting systems.

Problems stemming from the study of logic calculi in connection with an infer-ence rule called "condensed detachment" are widely acknowledged as prominenttest sets for automated deduction systems and their search guiding heuristics. Itis in the light of these problems that we demonstrate the power of heuristics thatmake use of past proof experience with numerous experiments.We present two such heuristics. The first heuristic attempts to re-enact aproof of a proof problem found in the past in a flexible way in order to find a proofof a similar problem. The second heuristic employs "features" in connection withpast proof experience to prune the search space. Both these heuristics not onlyallow for substantial speed-ups, but also make it possible to prove problems thatwere out of reach when using so-called basic heuristics. Moreover, a combinationof these two heuristics can further increase performance.We compare our results with the results the creators of Otter obtained withthis renowned theorem prover and this way substantiate our achievements.

We present an approach to prove several theorems in slightly different axiomsystems simultaneously. We represent the different problems as a taxonomy, i.e.a tree in which each node inherits all knowledge of its predecessors, and solve theproblems using inference steps on rules and equations with simple constraints,i.e. words identifying nodes in the taxonomy. We demonstrate that a substantialgain can be achieved by using taxonomic constraints, not only by avoiding therepetition of inference steps in the different problems but also by achieving runtimes that are much shorter than the accumulated run times when proving eachproblem separately.

The team work method is a concept for distributing automated theoremprovers and so to activate several experts to work on a given problem. We haveimplemented this for pure equational logic using the unfailing KnuthADBendixcompletion procedure as basic prover. In this paper we present three classes ofexperts working in a goal oriented fashion. In general, goal oriented experts perADform their job "unfair" and so are often unable to solve a given problem alone.However, as a team member in the team work method they perform highly effiADcient, even in comparison with such respected provers as Otter 3.0 or REVEAL,as we demonstrate by examples, some of which can only be proved using teamwork.The reason for these achievements results from the fact that the team workmethod forces the experts to compete for a while and then to cooperate by exADchanging their best results. This allows one to collect "good" intermediate resultsand to forget "useless" ones. Completion based proof methods are frequently reADgarded to have the disadvantage of being not goal oriented. We believe that ourapproach overcomes this disadvantage to a large extend.