Planning and Proof Planning

. The paper adresses proof planning as a specific AI planning. It describes some peculiarities of proof planning and discusses some possible cross-fertilization of planning and proof planning. 1 Introduction Planning is an established area of Artificial Intelligence (AI) whereas proof planning introduced by Bundy in [2] still lives in its childhood. This means that the development of proof planning needs maturing impulses and the natural questions arise What can proof planning learn from its Big Brother planning?' and What are the specific characteristics of the proof planning domain that determine the answer?'. In turn for planning, the analysis of approaches points to a need of mature techniques for practical planning. Drummond [8], e.g., analyzed approaches with the conclusion that the success of Nonlin, SIPE, and O-Plan in practical planning can be attributed to hierarchical action expansion, the explicit representation of a plan's causal structure, and a very simple form of propo..

Rationality and dynamic consistency under risk and uncertainty

For choice with deterministic consequences, the standard rationality hypothesis is ordinality - i.e., maximization of a weak preference ordering. For choice under risk (resp. uncertainty), preferences are assumed to be represented by the objectively (resp. subjectively) expected value of a von Neumann{Morgenstern utility function. For choice under risk, this implies a key independence axiom; under uncertainty, it implies some version of Savage's sure thing principle. This chapter investigates the extent to which ordinality, independence, and the sure thing principle can be derived from more fundamental axioms concerning behaviour in decision trees. Following Cubitt (1996), these principles include dynamic consistency, separability, and reduction of sequential choice, which can be derived in turn from one consequentialist hypothesis applied to continuation subtrees as well as entire decision trees. Examples of behavior violating these principles are also reviewed, as are possible explanations of why such violations are often observed in experiments

LTLf satisfiability checking

We consider here Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulas interpreted over \emph{finite} traces. We denote this logic by LTLf. The existing approach for LTLf satisfiability checking is based on a reduction to standard LTL satisfiability checking. We describe here a novel direct approach to LTLf satisfiability checking, where we take advantage of the difference in the semantics between LTL and LTLf. While LTL satisfiability checking requires finding a \emph{fair cycle} in an appropriate transition system, here we need to search only for a finite trace. This enables us to introduce specialized heuristics, where we also exploit recent progress in Boolean SAT solving. We have implemented our approach in a prototype tool and experiments show that our approach outperforms existing approaches

The Use of Proof Planning for Cooperative Theorem Proving

AbstractWe describebarnacle: a co-operative interface to theclaminductive theorem proving system. For the foreseeable future, there will be theorems which cannot be proved completely automatically, so the ability to allow human intervention is desirable; for this intervention to be productive the problem of orienting the user in the proof attempt must be overcome. There are many semi-automatic theorem provers: we call our style of theorem provingco-operative, in that the skills of both human and automaton are used each to their best advantage, and used together may find a proof where other methods fail. The co-operative nature of thebarnacleinterface is made possible by the proof planning technique underpinningclam. Our claim is that proof planning makes new kinds of user interaction possible.Proof planning is a technique for guiding the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. Common patterns of reasoning in proofs are identified and represented computationally as proof plans, which can then be used to guide the search for proofs of new conjectures. We have harnessed the explanatory power of proof planning to enable the user to understand where the automatic prover got to and why it is stuck. A user can analyse the failed proof in terms ofclam's specification language, and hence override the prover to force or prevent the application of a tactic, or discover a proof patch. This patch might be to apply further rules or tactics to bridge the gap between the effects of previous tactics and the preconditions needed by a currently inapplicable tactic

Regression with respect to sensing actions and partial states

In this paper, we present a state-based regression function for planning domains where an agent does not have complete information and may have sensing actions. We consider binary domains and employ the 0-approximation [Son & Baral 2001] to define the regression function. In binary domains, the use of 0-approximation means using 3-valued states. Although planning using this approach is incomplete with respect to the full semantics, we adopt it to have a lower complexity. We prove the soundness and completeness of our regression formulation with respect to the definition of progression. More specifically, we show that (i) a plan obtained through regression for a planning problem is indeed a progression solution of that planning problem, and that (ii) for each plan found through progression, using regression one obtains that plan or an equivalent one. We then develop a conditional planner that utilizes our regression function. We prove the soundness and completeness of our planning algorithm and present experimental results with respect to several well known planning problems in the literature.Comment: 38 page

Optimal Nested Test Plan for Combinatorial Quantitative Group Testing

We consider the quantitative group testing problem where the objective is to identify defective items in a given population based on results of tests performed on subsets of the population. Under the quantitative group testing model, the result of each test reveals the number of defective items in the tested group. The minimum number of tests achievable by nested test plans was established by Aigner and Schughart in 1985 within a minimax framework. The optimal nested test plan offering this performance, however, was not obtained. In this work, we establish the optimal nested test plan in closed form. This optimal nested test plan is also order optimal among all test plans as the population size approaches infinity. Using heavy-hitter detection as a case study, we show via simulation examples orders of magnitude improvement of the group testing approach over two prevailing sampling-based approaches in detection accuracy and counter consumption. Other applications include anomaly detection and wideband spectrum sensing in cognitive radio systems