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

Exchange of Geometric Information Between Applications

The Web Geometry Laboratory (WGL) is a collaborative and adaptive e-learning Web platform integrating a well known dynamic geometry system. Thousands of Geometric problems for Geometric Theorem Provers (TGTP) is a Web-based repository of geometric problems to support the testing and evaluation of geometric automated theorem proving systems. The users of these systems should be able to profit from each other. The TGTP corpus must be made available to the WGL user, allowing, in this way, the exploration of TGTP problems and their proofs. On the other direction TGTP could gain by the possibility of a wider users base submitting new problems. Such information exchange between clients (e.g. WGL) and servers (e.g. TGTP) raises many issues: geometric search - someone, working in a geometric problem, must be able to ask for more information regarding that construction; levels of geometric knowledge and interest - the problems in the servers must be classified in such a way that, in response to a client query, only the problems in the user's level and/or interest are returned; different aims of each tool - e.g. WGL is about secondary school geometry, TGTP is about formal proofs in semi-analytic and algebraic proof methods, not a perfect match indeed; localisation issues, e.g. a Portuguese user obliged to make the query and process the answer in English; technical issues-many technical issues need to be addressed to make this exchange of geometric information possible and useful. Instead of a giant (difficult to maintain) tool, trying to cover all, the interconnection of specialised tools seems much more promising. The challenges to make that connection work are many and difficult, but, it is the authors impression, not insurmountable.Comment: In Proceedings ThEdu'17, arXiv:1803.0072