Refine
Keywords
We present an approach to learning cooperative behavior of agents. Our ap-proach is based on classifying situations with the help of the nearest-neighborrule. In this context, learning amounts to evolving a set of good prototypical sit-uations. With each prototypical situation an action is associated that should beexecuted in that situation. A set of prototypical situation/action pairs togetherwith the nearest-neighbor rule represent the behavior of an agent.We demonstrate the utility of our approach in the light of variants of thewell-known pursuit game. To this end, we present a classification of variantsof the pursuit game, and we report on the results of our approach obtained forvariants regarding several aspects of the classification. A first implementationof our approach that utilizes a genetic algorithm to conduct the search for a setof suitable prototypical situation/action pairs was able to handle many differentvariants.
In this paper we show that distributing the theorem proving task to several experts is a promising idea. We describe the team work method which allows the experts to compete for a while and then to cooperate. In the cooperation phase the best results derived in the competition phase are collected and the less important results are forgotten. We describe some useful experts and explain in detail how they work together. We establish fairness criteria and so prove the distributed system to be both, complete and correct. We have implementedour system and show by non-trivial examples that drastical time speed-ups are possible for a cooperating team of experts compared to the time needed by the best expert in the team.
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.
Automatic proof systems are becoming more and more powerful.However, the proofs generated by these systems are not met withwide acceptance, because they are presented in a way inappropriatefor human understanding.In this paper we pursue two different, but related, aims. First wedescribe methods to structure and transform equational proofs in away that they conform to human reading conventions. We developalgorithms to impose a hierarchical structure on proof protocols fromcompletion based proof systems and to generate equational chainsfrom them.Our second aim is to demonstrate the difficulties of obtaining suchprotocols from distributed proof systems and to present our solutionto these problems for provers using the TEAMWORK method. Wealso show that proof systems using this method can give considerablehelp in structuring the proof listing in a way analogous to humanbehaviour.In addition to theoretical results we also include descriptions onalgorithms, implementation notes, examples and data on a variety ofexamples.
This paper presents a new way to use planning in automated theorem provingby means of distribution. To overcome the problem that often subtasks fora proof problem can not be detected a priori (which prevents the use of theknown planning and distribution techniques) we use a team of experts that workindependently with different heuristics on the problem. After a certain amount oftime referees judge their results using the impact of the results on the behaviourof the expert and a supervisor combines the selected results to a new startingpoint.This supervisor also selects the experts that can work on the problem inthe next round. This selection is a reactive planning task. We outline whichinformation the supervisor can use to fulfill this task and how this informationis processed to result in a plan or to revise a plan. We also show that the useof planning for the assignment of experts to the team allows the system to solvemany different examples in an acceptable time with the same start configurationand without any consultation of the user.Plans are always subject to changeShin'a'in proverb
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.
Der Trend zu einer immer stärkeren Kopplung von Systemen bei gleichzeitiger Dezentralisierung durch Vernetzung hat dazu geführt, daß Computernutzern auf Wunsch enorme Datenmengen zur Verfügung stehen, die sich einer sinnvollen Bearbeitung durch den Nutzer allein völlig entziehen. Unterschiedliche Repräsentationsformalismen für Informationen, Mehrdeutigkeiten, Redundanz sowie eingeschränkte Verfügbarkeit sowohl von Informationen als auch von Rechenleistung machen konventionelle Suchverfahren unanwendbar. Stattdessen werden Suchverfahren und Programme benötigt, die sich intelligent an unterschiedliche Formalismen anpassen, ihre Handlungen ständig evaluieren und fähig sind, ihre Benutzer individuell zu unterstützen. Schlagwörter wie Knowbots, Search-Engines oder Data-Miningsind deshalb zur Zeit in aller Munde. Ein umfassendes Buch, das die hinter diesen und ähnlichen Schlagwörtern verborgenen Ideen und Konzepte präsentiert, existiert jedoch zur Zeit noch nicht. Dies war für uns die Motivation, das Thema "Intelligente Suche im Internet mit Lernenden Systemen" in einem Seminar zu behandeln. Wir haben damit ein Forschungsgebiet aufgegriffen, das sowohl für alle am LSA beteiligten Gruppen von Interesse ist, aber darüber hinaus aktuell von vielen Seiten aufmerksam beobachtet wird. Daher haben wir uns entschlossen, die Ausarbeitungen, die im Rahmen dieses Seminars von den TeilmehmerInnen erstellt wurden, durch den vorliegenden Bericht einer breiteren Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen.
We present an overview of various learning techniques used in automated theorem provers. We characterize the main problems arising in this context and classify the solutions to these problems from published approaches. We analyze the suitability of several combinations of solutions for different approaches to theorem proving and place these combinations in a spectrum ranging from provers using very specialized learning approaches to optimally adapt to a small class of proof problems, to provers that learn more general kinds of knowledge, resulting in systems that are less efficient in special cases but show improved performance for a wide range of problems. Finally, we suggest combinations of solutions for various proof philosophies.
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.
