A Decidable Confluence Test for Cognitive Models in ACT-R

Computational cognitive modeling investigates human cognition by building detailed computational models for cognitive processes. Adaptive Control of Thought - Rational (ACT-R) is a rule-based cognitive architecture that offers a widely employed framework to build such models. There is a sound and complete embedding of ACT-R in Constraint Handling Rules (CHR). Therefore analysis techniques from CHR can be used to reason about computational properties of ACT-R models. For example, confluence is the property that a program yields the same result for the same input regardless of the rules that are applied. In ACT-R models, there are often cognitive processes that should always yield the same result while others e.g. implement strategies to solve a problem that could yield different results. In this paper, a decidable confluence criterion for ACT-R is presented. It allows to identify ACT-R rules that are not confluent. Thereby, the modeler can check if his model has the desired behavior. The sound and complete translation of ACT-R to CHR from prior work is used to come up with a suitable invariant-based confluence criterion from the CHR literature. Proper invariants for translated ACT-R models are identified and proven to be decidable. The presented method coincides with confluence of the original ACT-R models.Comment: To appear in Stefania Costantini, Enrico Franconi, William Van Woensel, Roman Kontchakov, Fariba Sadri, and Dumitru Roman: "Proceedings of RuleML+RR 2017". Springer LNC

A Graphical Language for Proof Strategies

Complex automated proof strategies are often difficult to extract, visualise, modify, and debug. Traditional tactic languages, often based on stack-based goal propagation, make it easy to write proofs that obscure the flow of goals between tactics and are fragile to minor changes in input, proof structure or changes to tactics themselves. Here, we address this by introducing a graphical language called PSGraph for writing proof strategies. Strategies are constructed visually by "wiring together" collections of tactics and evaluated by propagating goal nodes through the diagram via graph rewriting. Tactic nodes can have many output wires, and use a filtering procedure based on goal-types (predicates describing the features of a goal) to decide where best to send newly-generated sub-goals. In addition to making the flow of goal information explicit, the graphical language can fulfil the role of many tacticals using visual idioms like branching, merging, and feedback loops. We argue that this language enables development of more robust proof strategies and provide several examples, along with a prototype implementation in Isabelle

The role of computational logic as a hinge paradigm among deduction, problem solving, programming, and parallelism

This paper presents some brief considerations on the role of Computational Logic in the construction of Artificial Intelligence systems and in programming in general. It does not address how the many problems in AI can be solved but, rather more modestly, tries to point out some advantages of Computational Logic as a tool for the AI scientist in his quest. It addresses the interaction between declarative and procedural views of programs (deduction and action), the impact of the intrinsic limitations of logic, the relationship with other apparently competing computational paradigms, and finally discusses implementation-related issues, such as the efficiency of current implementations and their capability for efficiently exploiting existing and future sequential and parallel hardware. The purpose of the discussion is in no way to present Computational Logic as the unique overall vehicle for the development of intelligent systems (in the firm belief that such a panacea is yet to be found) but rather to stress its strengths in providing reasonable solutions to several aspects of the task

Cognitive architectures as Lakatosian research programmes: two case studies

Cognitive architectures - task-general theories of the structure and function of the complete cognitive system - are sometimes argued to be more akin to frameworks or belief systems than scientific theories. The argument stems from the apparent non-falsifiability of existing cognitive architectures. Newell was aware of this criticism and argued that architectures should be viewed not as theories subject to Popperian falsification, but rather as Lakatosian research programs based on cumulative growth. Newell's argument is undermined because he failed to demonstrate that the development of Soar, his own candidate architecture, adhered to Lakatosian principles. This paper presents detailed case studies of the development of two cognitive architectures, Soar and ACT-R, from a Lakatosian perspective. It is demonstrated that both are broadly Lakatosian, but that in both cases there have been theoretical progressions that, according to Lakatosian criteria, are pseudo-scientific. Thus, Newell's defense of Soar as a scientific rather than pseudo-scientific theory is not supported in practice. The ACT series of architectures has fewer pseudo-scientific progressions than Soar, but it too is vulnerable to accusations of pseudo-science. From this analysis, it is argued that successive versions of theories of the human cognitive architecture must explicitly address five questions to maintain scientific credibility

Capturing Hiproofs in HOL Light

Hierarchical proof trees (hiproofs for short) add structure to ordinary proof trees, by allowing portions of trees to be hierarchically nested. The additional structure can be used to abstract away from details, or to label particular portions to explain their purpose. In this paper we present two complementary methods for capturing hiproofs in HOL Light, along with a tool to produce web-based visualisations. The first method uses tactic recording, by modifying tactics to record their arguments and construct a hierarchical tree; this allows a tactic proof script to be modified. The second method uses proof recording, which extends the HOL Light kernel to record hierachical proof trees alongside theorems. This method is less invasive, but requires care to manage the size of the recorded objects. We have implemented both methods, resulting in two systems: Tactician and HipCam

A Synthesis of the Procedural and Declarative Styles of Interactive Theorem Proving

We propose a synthesis of the two proof styles of interactive theorem proving: the procedural style (where proofs are scripts of commands, like in Coq) and the declarative style (where proofs are texts in a controlled natural language, like in Isabelle/Isar). Our approach combines the advantages of the declarative style - the possibility to write formal proofs like normal mathematical text - and the procedural style - strong automation and help with shaping the proofs, including determining the statements of intermediate steps. Our approach is new, and differs significantly from the ways in which the procedural and declarative proof styles have been combined before in the Isabelle, Ssreflect and Matita systems. Our approach is generic and can be implemented on top of any procedural interactive theorem prover, regardless of its architecture and logical foundations. To show the viability of our proposed approach, we fully implemented it as a proof interface called miz3, on top of the HOL Light interactive theorem prover. The declarative language that this interface uses is a slight variant of the language of the Mizar system, and can be used for any interactive theorem prover regardless of its logical foundations. The miz3 interface allows easy access to the full set of tactics and formal libraries of HOL Light, and as such has "industrial strength". Our approach gives a way to automatically convert any procedural proof to a declarative counterpart, where the converted proof is similar in size to the original. As all declarative systems have essentially the same proof language, this gives a straightforward way to port proofs between interactive theorem provers