Towards Ranking Geometric Automated Theorem Provers

The field of geometric automated theorem provers has a long and rich history, from the early AI approaches of the 1960s, synthetic provers, to today algebraic and synthetic provers. The geometry automated deduction area differs from other areas by the strong connection between the axiomatic theories and its standard models. In many cases the geometric constructions are used to establish the theorems' statements, geometric constructions are, in some provers, used to conduct the proof, used as counter-examples to close some branches of the automatic proof. Synthetic geometry proofs are done using geometric properties, proofs that can have a visual counterpart in the supporting geometric construction. With the growing use of geometry automatic deduction tools as applications in other areas, e.g. in education, the need to evaluate them, using different criteria, is felt. Establishing a ranking among geometric automated theorem provers will be useful for the improvement of the current methods/implementations. Improvements could concern wider scope, better efficiency, proof readability and proof reliability. To achieve the goal of being able to compare geometric automated theorem provers a common test bench is needed: a common language to describe the geometric problems; a comprehensive repository of geometric problems and a set of quality measures.Comment: In Proceedings ThEdu'18, arXiv:1903.1240

Towards a Geometry Automated Provers Competition

The geometry automated theorem proving area distinguishes itself by a large number of specific methods and implementations, different approaches (synthetic, algebraic, semi-synthetic) and different goals and applications (from research in the area of artificial intelligence to applications in education). Apart from the usual measures of efficiency (e.g. CPU time), the possibility of visual and/or readable proofs is also an expected output against which the geometry automated theorem provers (GATP) should be measured. The implementation of a competition between GATP would allow to create a test bench for GATP developers to improve the existing ones and to propose new ones. It would also allow to establish a ranking for GATP that could be used by "clients" (e.g. developers of educational e-learning systems) to choose the best implementation for a given intended use.Comment: In Proceedings ThEdu'19, arXiv:2002.1189

Integrating DGSs and GATPs in an Adaptative and Collaborative Blended-Learning Web-Environment

The area of geometry with its very strong and appealing visual contents and its also strong and appealing connection between the visual content and its formal specification, is an area where computational tools can enhance, in a significant way, the learning environments. The dynamic geometry software systems (DGSs) can be used to explore the visual contents of geometry. This already mature tools allows an easy construction of geometric figures build from free objects and elementary constructions. The geometric automated theorem provers (GATPs) allows formal deductive reasoning about geometric constructions, extending the reasoning via concrete instances in a given model to formal deductive reasoning in a geometric theory. An adaptative and collaborative blended-learning environment where the DGS and GATP features could be fully explored would be, in our opinion a very rich and challenging learning environment for teachers and students. In this text we will describe the Web Geometry Laboratory a Web environment incorporating a DGS and a repository of geometric problems, that can be used in a synchronous and asynchronous fashion and with some adaptative and collaborative features. As future work we want to enhance the adaptative and collaborative aspects of the environment and also to incorporate a GATP, constructing a dynamic and individualised learning environment for geometry.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Generalizing Morley’s and other theorems with automated realization

A new approach is shown that mechanically proves various theorems in plane geometry by recasting them in terms of constraint satisfaction. A Python 3 implementation called GEOPAR affords transparent proofs of well-known theorems as well as new ones, including a generalization of Morley’s Theorem

Improving QED-Tutrix by Automating the Generation of Proofs

The idea of assisting teachers with technological tools is not new. Mathematics in general, and geometry in particular, provide interesting challenges when developing educative softwares, both in the education and computer science aspects. QED-Tutrix is an intelligent tutor for geometry offering an interface to help high school students in the resolution of demonstration problems. It focuses on specific goals: 1) to allow the student to freely explore the problem and its figure, 2) to accept proofs elements in any order, 3) to handle a variety of proofs, which can be customized by the teacher, and 4) to be able to help the student at any step of the resolution of the problem, if the need arises. The software is also independent from the intervention of the teacher. QED-Tutrix offers an interesting approach to geometry education, but is currently crippled by the lengthiness of the process of implementing new problems, a task that must still be done manually. Therefore, one of the main focuses of the QED-Tutrix' research team is to ease the implementation of new problems, by automating the tedious step of finding all possible proofs for a given problem. This automation must follow fundamental constraints in order to create problems compatible with QED-Tutrix: 1) readability of the proofs, 2) accessibility at a high school level, and 3) possibility for the teacher to modify the parameters defining the "acceptability" of a proof. We present in this paper the result of our preliminary exploration of possible avenues for this task. Automated theorem proving in geometry is a widely studied subject, and various provers exist. However, our constraints are quite specific and some adaptation would be required to use an existing prover. We have therefore implemented a prototype of automated prover to suit our needs. The future goal is to compare performances and usability in our specific use-case between the existing provers and our implementation.Comment: In Proceedings ThEdu'17, arXiv:1803.0072

Automating the Generation of High School Geometry Proofs using Prolog in an Educational Context

When working on intelligent tutor systems designed for mathematics education and its specificities, an interesting objective is to provide relevant help to the students by anticipating their next steps. This can only be done by knowing, beforehand, the possible ways to solve a problem. Hence the need for an automated theorem prover that provide proofs as they would be written by a student. To achieve this objective, logic programming is a natural tool due to the similarity of its reasoning with a mathematical proof by inference. In this paper, we present the core ideas we used to implement such a prover, from its encoding in Prolog to the generation of the complete set of proofs. However, when dealing with educational aspects, there are many challenges to overcome. We also present the main issues we encountered, as well as the chosen solutions.Comment: In Proceedings ThEdu'19, arXiv:2002.1189

A support system for solving problems of two-triangle congruence using "backward chaining"

We developed a system called DELTA that supports the students’ use of backward chaining (BC) to prove the congruence of two triangles. DELTA is designed as an interactive learning environment and supports the use of BC by providing hints and a function to automatically check the proofs inputted by the students. DELTA also has coloring, mark- ing, and highlighting functions to support students’ attempts to prove the congruence of two triangles. We evaluated the efficacy of DELTA with 36 students in the second grade of a junior high school in Japan. We found that (1) the mean number of problems, which the experimental group (EG) completely solved, was statistically higher than that of the control group on the post-test; (2) the EG effectively used the BC strategy to solve problems; and (3) the students’ attempt to use both the forward chaining strategy and the BC strategy led to solving the problems completely