Model-Guided Proof Planning

Proof planning is a form of theorem proving in which the proving procedure is viewed as a planning process. The plan operators in proof planning are called methods. In this paper we propose a strategy for heuristically restricting the set of methods to be applied in proof search. It is based on the idea that the plausibility of a method can be estimated by comparing the model class of proof lines newly generated by the method with that of the assumptions and of the theorem. For instance, in forward reasoning when a method produces a new assumption whose model class is not a superset of the model class of the given premises, the method will lead to a situation which is semantically not justified and will not lead to a valid proof in later stages. A semantic restriction strategy is to reduce the search space by excluding methods whose application results in a semantic mismatch. A semantic selection strategy heuristically chooses the method that is likely to make most progress towards filling the gap between the assumptions and the theorem. Each candidate method is evaluated with respect to the subset and superset relation with the given premises. All models considered are taken from a finite reference subset of the full model class. In this contribution we present the model-guided approach as well as first experiments with it.

[1]  Wolfgang Bibel,et al.  SETHEO: A high-performance theorem prover , 1992, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[2]  Norbert Eisinger,et al.  The Markgraf Karl Refutation Procedure (MKRP) , 1986, CADE.

[3]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle , 1965, JACM.

[4]  H. Gelernter,et al.  Realization of a geometry theorem proving machine , 1995, IFIP Congress.

[5]  Xiaorong Huang,et al.  Methods - The Basic Units for Planning and Verifying Proofs , 1999 .

[6]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  SPASS & FLOTTER Version 0.42 , 1996, CADE.

[8]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  Vampire 1.1 (System Description) , 2001, IJCAR.

[9]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Extensions to the Rippling-Out Tactic for Guiding Inductive Proofs , 1990, CADE.

[10]  William McCune,et al.  OTTER 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide , 1994 .

[11]  Alan Bundy,et al.  The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs , 1988, CADE.

[12]  J. Hadamard,et al.  The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. , 1945 .

[13]  M. Braine On the Relation Between the Natural Logic of Reasoning and Standard Logic. , 1978 .

[14]  Josiah Royce,et al.  The psychology of invention. , 1898 .

[15]  G. Pólya Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning , 1958 .

[16]  Bartel Leendert,et al.  Wie der Beweis der Vermutung von Baudet gefunden wurde , 1998 .

[17]  William McCune,et al.  Solution of the Robbins Problem , 1997, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[18]  George Polya,et al.  Mathematical discovery : on understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving , 1962 .

[19]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Experiments with proof plans for induction , 2004, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[20]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  Semantically Guided First-Order Theorem Proving using Hyper-Linking , 1994, CADE.

[21]  Andrew Ireland,et al.  Productive use of failure in inductive proof , 1996, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[22]  Xiaorong Huang,et al.  Planning Mathematical Proofs with Methods , 1994, J. Inf. Process. Cybern..

[23]  John K. Slaney,et al.  System Description: SCOTT-5 , 2001, IJCAR.

[24]  William McCune,et al.  SCOTT: Semantically Constrained Otter System Description , 1994, CADE.

[25]  Volker Sorge,et al.  Omega: Towards a Mathematical Assistant , 1997, CADE.

[26]  R. Smullyan First-Order Logic , 1968 .

[27]  Manfred Kerber,et al.  Proof Planning: A Practical Approach to Mechanized Reasoning in Mathematics , 1998 .