## SEKI Report

### Refine

#### Keywords

- 94,3
- An alternative for handling AC (1994)
- A method for efficiently handling associativity and commutativity (AC) in implementations of (equational) theorem provers without incorporating AC as an underlying theory will be presented. The key of substantial efficiency gains resides in a more suitable representation of permutation-equations (such as f(x,f(y,z))=f(y,f(z,x)) for instance). By representing these permutation-equations through permutations in the mathematical sense (i.e. bijective func- tions :{1,..,n} {1,..,n}), and by applying adapted and specialized inference rules, we can cope more appropriately with the fact that permutation-equations are playing a particular role. Moreover, a number of restrictions concerning application and generation of permuta- tion-equations can be found that would not be possible in this extent when treating permu- tation-equations just like any other equation. Thus, further improvements in efficiency can be achieved.

- 96,8
- Evolving Combinators (1996)
- One of the many abilities that distinguish a mathematician from an auto-mated deduction system is to be able to offer appropriate expressions based onintuition and experience that are substituted for existentially quantified variablesso as to simplify the problem at hand substantially. We propose to simulate thisability with a technique called genetic programming for use in automated deduc-tion. We apply this approach to problems of combinatory logic. Our experimen-tal results show that the approach is viable and actually produces very promisingresults. A comparison with the renowned theorem prover Otter underlines theachievements.This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

- 96,7
- Towards Full Automation of Deduction: A Case Study (1996)
- We present first steps towards fully automated deduction that merely requiresthe user to submit proof problems and pick up results. Essentially, this necessi-tates the automation of the crucial step in the use of a deduction system, namelychoosing and configuring an appropriate search-guiding heuristic. Furthermore,we motivate why learning capabilities are pivotal for satisfactory performance.The infrastructure for automating both the selection of a heuristic and integra-tion of learning are provided in form of an environment embedding the "core"deduction system.We have conducted a case study in connection with a deduction system basedon condensed detachment. Our experiments with a fully automated deductionsystem 'AutoCoDe' have produced remarkable results. We substantiate Au-toCoDe's encouraging achievements with a comparison with the renowned the-orem prover Otter. AutoCoDe outperforms Otter even when assuming veryfavorable conditions for Otter.

- 95,10
- Experiments in the Heuristic Use of Past Proof Experience (1995)
- 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.

- 95,2
- Learning proof heuristics by adapting parameters (1995)
- We present a method for learning heuristics employed by an automated proverto control its inference machine. The hub of the method is the adaptation of theparameters of a heuristic. Adaptation is accomplished by a genetic algorithm.The necessary guidance during the learning process is provided by a proof prob-lem and a proof of it found in the past. The objective of learning consists infinding a parameter configuration that avoids redundant effort w.r.t. this prob-lem and the particular proof of it. A heuristic learned (adapted) this way canthen be applied profitably when searching for a proof of a similar problem. So,our method can be used to train a proof heuristic for a class of similar problems.A number of experiments (with an automated prover for purely equationallogic) show that adapted heuristics are not only able to speed up enormously thesearch for the proof learned during adaptation. They also reduce redundancies inthe search for proofs of similar theorems. This not only results in finding proofsfaster, but also enables the prover to prove theorems it could not handle before.

- 94,4
- Goal oriented equational theorem proving using team work (1999)
- 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.

- 94,2
- The application of goal-oriented heuristics for prooving equational theorems via the unfailing Knuth-Bendix completion procedure A case study: lattice ordered groups (1999)
- In this report we present a case study of employing goal-oriented heuristics whenproving equational theorems with the (unfailing) Knut-Bendix completion proce-dure. The theorems are taken from the domain of lattice ordered groups. It will bedemonstrated that goal-oriented (heuristic) criteria for selecting the next critical paircan in many cases significantly reduce the search effort and hence increase per-formance of the proving system considerably. The heuristic, goalADoriented criteriaare on the one hand based on so-called "measures" measuring occurrences andnesting of function symbols, and on the other hand based on matching subterms.We also deal with the property of goal-oriented heuristics to be particularly helpfulin certain stages of a proof. This fact can be addressed by using them in a frame-work for distributed (equational) theorem proving, namely the "teamwork-method".