Dependency theory e-learning tool

In this paper, we describe an e-learning tool that we have developed to assist University students studying Relational Schema design. The tool employs Expert System techniques to create a learning environment in which students can explore the concepts of dependency theory, and the normalization process. The tool is able to respond in an individualistic way to student input and allows students to construct their own learning environment and develop their understanding of the material at a pace that is controlled by the individual student. Our formative and summative tests indicate that the tool provides students with a different and valuable type of learning experience when compared with a traditional, textbook-based approach

A logic programming e-learning tool for teaching database dependency theory

In this paper, we describe an "intelligent" tool for helping to teach the principles of database design. The software that we present uses PROLOG to implement a teaching tool with which students can explore the concepts of dependency theory, and the normalization process. Students are able to construct their own learning environment and can develop their understanding of the material at a pace that is controlled by the individual student

Learning outcome dependency on contemporary ICT in the New Zealand middle school classroom

Often studies of children's technology use in the classroom is internally focused and small scale. This study attempts a globalised exploratory overview of an entire New Zealand middle school to understand the technology usages across a range of curriculum and learning outcomes. Observations of the use of technology in the classroom during eight different lessons were conducted followed by structured-open-ended interviews. From our classroom observations and through teacher interviews, we have been able to identify three levels of the dependency of learning outcome on contemporary-ICT

The Structured Process Modeling Method (SPMM) : what is the best way for me to construct a process model?

More and more organizations turn to the construction of process models to support strategical and operational tasks. At the same time, reports indicate quality issues for a considerable part of these models, caused by modeling errors. Therefore, the research described in this paper investigates the development of a practical method to determine and train an optimal process modeling strategy that aims to decrease the number of cognitive errors made during modeling. Such cognitive errors originate in inadequate cognitive processing caused by the inherent complexity of constructing process models. The method helps modelers to derive their personal cognitive profile and the related optimal cognitive strategy that minimizes these cognitive failures. The contribution of the research consists of the conceptual method and an automated modeling strategy selection and training instrument. These two artefacts are positively evaluated by a laboratory experiment covering multiple modeling sessions and involving a total of 149 master students at Ghent University

Learning-assisted Theorem Proving with Millions of Lemmas

Large formal mathematical libraries consist of millions of atomic inference steps that give rise to a corresponding number of proved statements (lemmas). Analogously to the informal mathematical practice, only a tiny fraction of such statements is named and re-used in later proofs by formal mathematicians. In this work, we suggest and implement criteria defining the estimated usefulness of the HOL Light lemmas for proving further theorems. We use these criteria to mine the large inference graph of the lemmas in the HOL Light and Flyspeck libraries, adding up to millions of the best lemmas to the pool of statements that can be re-used in later proofs. We show that in combination with learning-based relevance filtering, such methods significantly strengthen automated theorem proving of new conjectures over large formal mathematical libraries such as Flyspeck.Comment: journal version of arXiv:1310.2797 (which was submitted to LPAR conference

Learning-Assisted Automated Reasoning with Flyspeck

The considerable mathematical knowledge encoded by the Flyspeck project is combined with external automated theorem provers (ATPs) and machine-learning premise selection methods trained on the proofs, producing an AI system capable of answering a wide range of mathematical queries automatically. The performance of this architecture is evaluated in a bootstrapping scenario emulating the development of Flyspeck from axioms to the last theorem, each time using only the previous theorems and proofs. It is shown that 39% of the 14185 theorems could be proved in a push-button mode (without any high-level advice and user interaction) in 30 seconds of real time on a fourteen-CPU workstation. The necessary work involves: (i) an implementation of sound translations of the HOL Light logic to ATP formalisms: untyped first-order, polymorphic typed first-order, and typed higher-order, (ii) export of the dependency information from HOL Light and ATP proofs for the machine learners, and (iii) choice of suitable representations and methods for learning from previous proofs, and their integration as advisors with HOL Light. This work is described and discussed here, and an initial analysis of the body of proofs that were found fully automatically is provided

Premise Selection for Mathematics by Corpus Analysis and Kernel Methods

Smart premise selection is essential when using automated reasoning as a tool for large-theory formal proof development. A good method for premise selection in complex mathematical libraries is the application of machine learning to large corpora of proofs. This work develops learning-based premise selection in two ways. First, a newly available minimal dependency analysis of existing high-level formal mathematical proofs is used to build a large knowledge base of proof dependencies, providing precise data for ATP-based re-verification and for training premise selection algorithms. Second, a new machine learning algorithm for premise selection based on kernel methods is proposed and implemented. To evaluate the impact of both techniques, a benchmark consisting of 2078 large-theory mathematical problems is constructed,extending the older MPTP Challenge benchmark. The combined effect of the techniques results in a 50% improvement on the benchmark over the Vampire/SInE state-of-the-art system for automated reasoning in large theories.Comment: 26 page

Machine learning with the hierarchy‐of‐hypotheses (HoH) approach discovers novel pattern in studies on biological invasions

Research synthesis on simple yet general hypotheses and ideas is challenging in scientific disciplines studying highly context‐dependent systems such as medical, social, and biological sciences. This study shows that machine learning, equation‐free statistical modeling of artificial intelligence, is a promising synthesis tool for discovering novel patterns and the source of controversy in a general hypothesis. We apply a decision tree algorithm, assuming that evidence from various contexts can be adequately integrated in a hierarchically nested structure. As a case study, we analyzed 163 articles that studied a prominent hypothesis in invasion biology, the enemy release hypothesis. We explored if any of the nine attributes that classify each study can differentiate conclusions as classification problem. Results corroborated that machine learning can be useful for research synthesis, as the algorithm could detect patterns that had been already focused in previous narrative reviews. Compared with the previous synthesis study that assessed the same evidence collection based on experts' judgement, the algorithm has newly proposed that the studies focusing on Asian regions mostly supported the hypothesis, suggesting that more detailed investigations in these regions can enhance our understanding of the hypothesis. We suggest that machine learning algorithms can be a promising synthesis tool especially where studies (a) reformulate a general hypothesis from different perspectives, (b) use different methods or variables, or (c) report insufficient information for conducting meta‐analyses