Proof planning is an alternative methodology to classical automated theorem prov-ing based on exhausitve search that was first introduced by Bundy . 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 . 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.
In this paper we present an extensional higher-order resolution calculus that iscomplete relative to Henkin model semantics. The treatment of the extensionality princi-ples - necessary for the completeness result - by specialized (goal-directed) inference rulesis of practical applicability, as an implentation of the calculus in the Leo-System shows.Furthermore, we prove the long-standing conjecture, that it is sufficient to restrict the orderof primitive substitutions to the order of input formulae.
We present a methodology for coupling several saturation-based theoremprovers (running on different computers). The methodology is well-suited for re-alizing cooperation between different incarnations of one basic prover. Moreover,also different heterogeneous provers - that differ from each other in the calculusand in the heuristic they employ - can be coupled. Cooperation between the dif-ferent provers is achieved by periodically interchanging clauses which are selectedby so-called referees. We present theoretic results regarding the completeness ofthe system of cooperating provers as well as describe concrete heuristics for de-signing referees. Furthermore, we report on two experimental studies performedwith homogeneous and heterogeneous provers in the areas superposition and un-failing completion. The results reveal that the occurring synergetic effects leadto a significant improvement of performance.
Top-down and bottom-up theorem proving approaches have each specific ad-vantages and disadvantages. Bottom-up provers profit from strong redundancycontrol and suffer from the lack of goal-orientation, whereas top-down provers aregoal-oriented but have weak calculi when their proof lengths are considered. Inorder to integrate both approaches our method is to achieve cooperation betweena top-down and a bottom-up prover: The top-down prover generates subgoalclauses, then they are processed by a bottom-up prover. We discuss theoreticaspects of this methodology and we introduce techniques for a relevancy-basedfiltering of generated subgoal clauses. Experiments with a model eliminationand a superposition-based prover reveal the high potential of our cooperation approach.The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
We examine an approach for demand-driven cooperative theorem proving.We briefly point out the problems arising from the use of common success-driven cooperation methods, and we propose the application of our approachof requirement-based cooperative theorem proving. This approach allows for abetter orientation on current needs of provers in comparison with conventional co-operation concepts. We introduce an abstract framework for requirement-basedcooperation and describe two instantiations of it: Requirement-based exchangeof facts and sub-problem division and transfer via requests. Finally, we reporton experimental studies conducted in the areas superposition and unfailing com-pletion.The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
This report contains a collection of abstracts for talks given at the "Deduktionstreffen" held at Kaiserslautern, October 6 to 8, 1993. The topics of the talks range from theoretical aspects of term rewriting systems and higher order resolution to descriptions of practical proof systems in various applications. They are grouped together according the following classification: Distribution and Combination of Theorem Provers, Termination, Completion, Functional Programs, Inductive Theorem Proving, Automatic Theorem Proving, Proof Presentation. The Deduktionstreffen is the annual meeting of the Fachgruppe Deduktionssysteme in the Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), the German association for computer science.
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.
In this paper we provide a semantical meta-theory that will support the development of higher-order calculi for automated theorem proving like the corresponding methodology has in first-order logic. To reach this goal, we establish classes of models that adequately characterize the existing theorem-proving calculi, that is, so that they are sound and complete to these calculi, and a standard methodology of abstract consistency methods (by providing the necessary model existence theorems) needed to analyze completeness of machine-oriented calculi.
HOT is an automated higher-order theorem prover based on HTE, an extensional higher-order tableaux calculus (Kohlhase 95). The first part of the paper introduces a variant of the calculus which closely corresponds to the proof procedure implemented in HOT. The second part discusses HOT's design that can be characterized as a concurrent Blackboard architecture. We show the usefulness of the implementation by including benchmark results for over one hundred solved problems from logic and set theory.
Orderings on polynomial interpretations of operators represent a powerful technique for proving thetermination of rewriting systems. One of the main problems of polynomial orderings concerns thechoice of the right interpretation for a given rewriting system. It is very difficult to develop techniquesfor solving this problem. Here, we present three new heuristic approaches: (i) guidelines for dealingwith special classes of rewriting systems, (ii) an algorithm for choosing appropriate special polynomialsas well as (iii) an extension of the original polynomial ordering which supports the generation ofsuitable interpretations. All these heuristics will be applied to examples in order to illustrate theirpractical relevance.