Collected notes from the Benchmarks and Metrics Workshop

In recent years there has been a proliferation of proposals in the artificial intelligence (AI) literature for integrated agent architectures. Each architecture offers an approach to the general problem of constructing an integrated agent. Unfortunately, the ways in which one architecture might be considered better than another are not always clear. There has been a growing realization that many of the positive and negative aspects of an architecture become apparent only when experimental evaluation is performed and that to progress as a discipline, we must develop rigorous experimental methods. In addition to the intrinsic intellectual interest of experimentation, rigorous performance evaluation of systems is also a crucial practical concern to our research sponsors. DARPA, NASA, and AFOSR (among others) are actively searching for better ways of experimentally evaluating alternative approaches to building intelligent agents. One tool for experimental evaluation involves testing systems on benchmark tasks in order to assess their relative performance. As part of a joint DARPA and NASA funded project, NASA-Ames and Teleos Research are carrying out a research effort to establish a set of benchmark tasks and evaluation metrics by which the performance of agent architectures may be determined. As part of this project, we held a workshop on Benchmarks and Metrics at the NASA Ames Research Center on June 25, 1990. The objective of the workshop was to foster early discussion on this important topic. We did not achieve a consensus, nor did we expect to. Collected here is some of the information that was exchanged at the workshop. Given here is an outline of the workshop, a list of the participants, notes taken on the white-board during open discussions, position papers/notes from some participants, and copies of slides used in the presentations

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

Edit and verify

Automated theorem provers are used in extended static checking, where they are the performance bottleneck. Extended static checkers are run typically after incremental changes to the code. We propose to exploit this usage pattern to improve performance. We present two approaches of how to do so and a full solution