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

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..

A Comparative Study of the Application of Different Learning Techniques to Natural Language Interfaces

In this paper we present first results from a comparative study. Its aim is to test the feasibility of different inductive learning techniques to perform the automatic acquisition of linguistic knowledge within a natural language database interface. In our interface architecture the machine learning module replaces an elaborate semantic analysis component. The learning module learns the correct mapping of a user's input to the corresponding database command based on a collection of past input data. We use an existing interface to a production planning and control system as evaluation and compare the results achieved by different instance-based and model-based learning algorithms.Comment: 10 pages, to appear CoNLL9

Learning to solve planning problems efficiently by means of genetic programming

Declarative problem solving, such as planning, poses interesting challenges for Genetic Programming (GP). There have been recent attempts to apply GP to planning that fit two approaches: (a) using GP to search in plan space or (b) to evolve a planner. In this article, we propose to evolve only the heuristics to make a particular planner more efficient. This approach is more feasible than (b) because it does not have to build a planner from scratch but can take advantage of already existing planning systems. It is also more efficient than (a) because once the heuristics have been evolved, they can be used to solve a whole class of different planning problems in a planning domain, instead of running GP for every new planning problem. Empirical results show that our approach (EVOCK) is able to evolve heuristics in two planning domains (the blocks world and the logistics domain) that improve PRODIGY4.0 performance. Additionally, we experiment with a new genetic operator - Instance-Based Crossover - that is able to use traces of the base planner as raw genetic material to be injected into the evolving population.Publicad

Connectionist Theory Refinement: Genetically Searching the Space of Network Topologies

An algorithm that learns from a set of examples should ideally be able to exploit the available resources of (a) abundant computing power and (b) domain-specific knowledge to improve its ability to generalize. Connectionist theory-refinement systems, which use background knowledge to select a neural network's topology and initial weights, have proven to be effective at exploiting domain-specific knowledge; however, most do not exploit available computing power. This weakness occurs because they lack the ability to refine the topology of the neural networks they produce, thereby limiting generalization, especially when given impoverished domain theories. We present the REGENT algorithm which uses (a) domain-specific knowledge to help create an initial population of knowledge-based neural networks and (b) genetic operators of crossover and mutation (specifically designed for knowledge-based networks) to continually search for better network topologies. Experiments on three real-world domains indicate that our new algorithm is able to significantly increase generalization compared to a standard connectionist theory-refinement system, as well as our previous algorithm for growing knowledge-based networks.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

Logic Programming Applications: What Are the Abstractions and Implementations?

This article presents an overview of applications of logic programming, classifying them based on the abstractions and implementations of logic languages that support the applications. The three key abstractions are join, recursion, and constraint. Their essential implementations are for-loops, fixed points, and backtracking, respectively. The corresponding kinds of applications are database queries, inductive analysis, and combinatorial search, respectively. We also discuss language extensions and programming paradigms, summarize example application problems by application areas, and touch on example systems that support variants of the abstractions with different implementations

Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People

Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has renewed interest in building systems that learn and think like people. Many advances have come from using deep neural networks trained end-to-end in tasks such as object recognition, video games, and board games, achieving performance that equals or even beats humans in some respects. Despite their biological inspiration and performance achievements, these systems differ from human intelligence in crucial ways. We review progress in cognitive science suggesting that truly human-like learning and thinking machines will have to reach beyond current engineering trends in both what they learn, and how they learn it. Specifically, we argue that these machines should (a) build causal models of the world that support explanation and understanding, rather than merely solving pattern recognition problems; (b) ground learning in intuitive theories of physics and psychology, to support and enrich the knowledge that is learned; and (c) harness compositionality and learning-to-learn to rapidly acquire and generalize knowledge to new tasks and situations. We suggest concrete challenges and promising routes towards these goals that can combine the strengths of recent neural network advances with more structured cognitive models.Comment: In press at Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Open call for commentary proposals (until Nov. 22, 2016). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/information/calls-for-commentary/open-calls-for-commentar