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 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

Case-Analysis for Rippling and Inductive Proof

Rippling is a heuristic used to guide rewriting and is typically used for inductive theorem proving. We introduce a method to support case-analysis within rippling. Like earlier work, this allows goals containing if-statements to be proved automatically. The new contribution is that our method also supports case-analysis on datatypes. By locating the case-analysis as a step within rippling we also maintain the termination. The work has been implemented in IsaPlanner and used to extend the existing inductive proof method. We evaluate this extended prover on a large set of examples from Isabelle’s theory library and from the inductive theorem proving literature. We find that this leads to a significant improvement in the coverage of inductive theorem proving. The main limitations of the extended prover are identified, highlight the need for advances in the treatment of assumptions during rippling and when conjecturing lemmas