## Fachbereich Informatik

### Refine

#### Document Type

- Preprint (18) (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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

This paper shows how a new approach to theorem provingby analogy is applicable to real maths problems. This approach worksat the level of proof-plans and employs reformulation that goes beyondsymbol mapping. The Heine-Borel theorem is a widely known result inmathematics. It is usually stated in R 1 and similar versions are also truein R 2 , in topology, and metric spaces. Its analogical transfer was proposedas a challenge example and could not be solved by previous approachesto theorem proving by analogy. We use a proof-plan of the Heine-Boreltheorem in R 1 as a guide in automatically producing a proof-plan of theHeine-Borel theorem in R 2 by analogy-driven proof-plan construction.

This paper addresses a model of analogy-driven theorem proving that is more general and cognitively more adequate than previous approaches. The model works at the level ofproof-plans. More precisely, we consider analogy as a control strategy in proof planning that employs a source proof-plan to guide the construction of a proof-plan for the target problem. Our approach includes a reformulation of the source proof-plan. This is in accordance with the well known fact that constructing ananalogy in maths often amounts to first finding the appropriate representation which brings out the similarity of two problems, i.e., finding the right concepts and the right level of abstraction. Several well known theorems were processed by our analogy-driven proof-plan construction that could not be proven analogically by previous approaches.

This paper addresses analogy-driven auto-mated theorem proving that employs a sourceproof-plan to guide the search for a proof-planof the target problem. The approach presen-ted uses reformulations that go beyond symbolmappings and that incorporate frequently usedre-representations and abstractions. Severalrealistic math examples were successfully pro-cessed by our analogy-driven proof-plan con-struction. One challenge example, a Heine-Borel theorem, is discussed here. For this ex-ample the reformulaitons are shown step bystep and the modifying actions are demon-strated.

Analogy in CLAM
(1999)

CL A M is a proof planner, developed by the Dream group in Edinburgh,that mainly operates for inductive proofs. This paper addresses the questionhow an analogy model that I developed independently of CL A M can beapplied to CL A M and it presents analogy-driven proof plan construction as acontrol strategy of CL A M . This strategy is realized as a derivational analogythat includes the reformulation of proof plans. The analogical replay checkswhether the reformulated justifications of the source plan methods hold inthe target as a permission to transfer the method to the target plan. SinceCL A M has very efficient heuristic search strategies, the main purpose ofthe analogy is to suggest lemmas, to replay not commonly loaded methods,to suggest induction variables and induction terms, and to override controlrather than to construct a target proof plan that can be built by CL A Mitself more efficiently.

Die Beweisentwicklungsumgebung Omega-Mkrp soll Mathematiker bei einer ihrer Haupttätigkeiten, nämlich dem Beweisen mathematischer Theoreme unterstützen. Diese Unterstützung muß so komfortabel sein, daß die Beweise mit vertretbarem Aufwand formal durchgeführt werden können und daß die Korrektheit der so erzeugten Beweise durch das System sichergestellt wird. Ein solches System wird sich nur dann wirklich durchsetzen, wenn die rechnergestützte Suche nach formalen Beweisen weniger aufwendig und leichter ist, als ohne das System. Um dies zu erreichen, ergeben sich verschiedene Anforderungen an eine solche Entwicklungsumgebung, die wir im einzelnen beschreiben. Diese betreffen insbesondere die Ausdruckskraft der verwendeten Objektsprache, die Möglichkeit, abstrakt über Beweispläne zu reden, die am Menschen orientierte Präsentation der gefundenen Beweise, aber auch die effiziente Unterstützung beim Füllen von Beweislücken. Das im folgenden vorgestellte Omega-Mkrp-System ist eine Synthese der Ansätze des vollautomatischen, des interaktiven und des planbasierten Beweisens und versucht erstmalig die Ergebnisse dieser drei Forschungsrichtungen in einem System zu vereinigen. Dieser Artikel soll eine Übersicht über unsere Arbeit an diesem System geben.