Automated Generation of User Guidance by Combining Computation and Deduction

Herewith, a fairly old concept is published for the first time and named "Lucas Interpretation". This has been implemented in a prototype, which has been proved useful in educational practice and has gained academic relevance with an emerging generation of educational mathematics assistants (EMA) based on Computer Theorem Proving (CTP). Automated Theorem Proving (ATP), i.e. deduction, is the most reliable technology used to check user input. However ATP is inherently weak in automatically generating solutions for arbitrary problems in applied mathematics. This weakness is crucial for EMAs: when ATP checks user input as incorrect and the learner gets stuck then the system should be able to suggest possible next steps. The key idea of Lucas Interpretation is to compute the steps of a calculation following a program written in a novel CTP-based programming language, i.e. computation provides the next steps. User guidance is generated by combining deduction and computation: the latter is performed by a specific language interpreter, which works like a debugger and hands over control to the learner at breakpoints, i.e. tactics generating the steps of calculation. The interpreter also builds up logical contexts providing ATP with the data required for checking user input, thus combining computation and deduction. The paper describes the concepts underlying Lucas Interpretation so that open questions can adequately be addressed, and prerequisites for further work are provided.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Strategic Issues, Problems and Challenges in Inductive Theorem Proving

Abstract(Automated) Inductive Theorem Proving (ITP) is a challenging field in automated reasoning and theorem proving. Typically, (Automated) Theorem Proving (TP) refers to methods, techniques and tools for automatically proving general (most often first-order) theorems. Nowadays, the field of TP has reached a certain degree of maturity and powerful TP systems are widely available and used. The situation with ITP is strikingly different, in the sense that proving inductive theorems in an essentially automatic way still is a very challenging task, even for the most advanced existing ITP systems. Both in general TP and in ITP, strategies for guiding the proof search process are of fundamental importance, in automated as well as in interactive or mixed settings. In the paper we will analyze and discuss the most important strategic and proof search issues in ITP, compare ITP with TP, and argue why ITP is in a sense much more challenging. More generally, we will systematically isolate, investigate and classify the main problems and challenges in ITP w.r.t. automation, on different levels and from different points of views. Finally, based on this analysis we will present some theses about the state of the art in the field, possible criteria for what could be considered as substantial progress, and promising lines of research for the future, towards (more) automated ITP

Computer supported mathematics with Ωmega

AbstractClassical automated theorem proving of today is based on ingenious search techniques to find a proof for a given theorem in very large search spaces—often in the range of several billion clauses. But in spite of many successful attempts to prove even open mathematical problems automatically, their use in everyday mathematical practice is still limited.The shift from search based methods to more abstract planning techniques however opened up a paradigm for mathematical reasoning on a computer and several systems of that kind now employ a mix of interactive, search based as well as proof planning techniques.The Ωmega system is at the core of several related and well-integrated research projects of the Ωmega research group, whose aim is to develop system support for a working mathematician as well as a software engineer when employing formal methods for quality assurance. In particular, Ωmega supports proof development at a human-oriented abstract level of proof granularity. It is a modular system with a central proof data structure and several supplementary subsystems including automated deduction and computer algebra systems. Ωmega has many characteristics in common with systems like NuPrL, CoQ, Hol, Pvs, and Isabelle. However, it differs from these systems with respect to its focus on proof planning and in that respect it is more similar to the proof planning systems Clam and λClam at Edinburgh

Coupling CAD and CFD codes within a virtual integration platform

The Virtual Integration Platform (VIP) is an essential component of the VIRTUE project. It provides a system for combining disparate numerical analysis methods into a simulation environment. The platform allows for defining process chains, allocating of which tools to be used, and assigning users to perform the individual tasks. The platform also manages the data that are imported into or generated within a process, so that a version history of input and output can be evaluated. Within the VIP, a re-usable template for a given process chain can be created. A process chain is composed of one or more smaller tasks. For each of these tasks, a selection of available tools can be allocated. The advanced scripting methods in the VIP use wrappers for managing the individual tools. A wrapper allows communication between the platform and the tool, and passes input and output data as necessary, in most cases without modifying the tool in any way. In this way, third-party tools may also be used without the need for access to source code or special modifications. The included case study demonstrates several advantages of using the integration platform. A parametric propeller design process couples CAD and CFD codes to adapt the propeller to given operating constraints. The VIP template helped eliminate common user errors, and captured enough expert knowledge so that the casual user could perform the given tasks with minimal guidance. Areas of improvements to in-house codes and to the overall process were identified while using the integration platform. Additionally, the process chain was designed to facilitate formal optimisation methods

09411 Abstracts Collection -- Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction

From 04.10. to 09.10.2009, the Dagstuhl Seminar 09411 ``Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction\u27\u27 was held in Schloss Dagstuhl~--~Leibniz Center for Informatics. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

Technology assessment of advanced automation for space missions

Six general classes of technology requirements derived during the mission definition phase of the study were identified as having maximum importance and urgency, including autonomous world model based information systems, learning and hypothesis formation, natural language and other man-machine communication, space manufacturing, teleoperators and robot systems, and computer science and technology