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

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

Integrating Symbolic and Neural Processing in a Self-Organizing Architechture for Pattern Recognition and Prediction

British Petroleum (89A-1204); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N00014-92-J-4015); National Science Foundation (IRI-90-00530); Office of Naval Research (N00014-91-J-4100); Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620-92-J-0225

The challenge of complexity for cognitive systems

Complex cognition addresses research on (a) high-level cognitive processes – mainly problem solving, reasoning, and decision making – and their interaction with more basic processes such as perception, learning, motivation and emotion and (b) cognitive processes which take place in a complex, typically dynamic, environment. Our focus is on AI systems and cognitive models dealing with complexity and on psychological findings which can inspire or challenge cognitive systems research. In this overview we first motivate why we have to go beyond models for rather simple cognitive processes and reductionist experiments. Afterwards, we give a characterization of complexity from our perspective. We introduce the triad of cognitive science methods – analytical, empirical, and engineering methods – which in our opinion have all to be utilized to tackle complex cognition. Afterwards we highlight three aspects of complex cognition – complex problem solving, dynamic decision making, and learning of concepts, skills and strategies. We conclude with some reflections about and challenges for future research