ILP for Mathematical Discovery

We believe that AI programs written for discovery tasks will need to simultaneously employ a variety of reasoning techniques such as induction, abduction, deduction, calculation and invention. We describe the HR system which performs a novel ILP routine called automated theory formation. This combines inductive and deductive reasoning to form clausal theories consisting of classification rules and association rules. HR generates definitions using a set of production rules, interprets the definitions as classification rules, then uses the success sets of the definitions to induce hypotheses from which it extracts association rules. It uses third party theorem provers and model generators to check whether the association rules are entailed by a set of user supplied axioms. HR has been applied to a range of predictive, descriptive and subgroup discovery tasks in domains of pure mathematics. We describe these applications and how they have led to some interesting mathematical discoveries. Our main aim here is to provide a thorough overview of automated theory formation. A secondary aim is to promote mathematics as a worthy domain for ILP applications, and we provide pointers to mathematical datasets.

[1]  Simon Colton,et al.  Constraint Generation via Automated Theory Formation , 2001, CP.

[2]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[3]  Toby Walsh,et al.  On the notion of interestingness in automated mathematical discovery , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Simon Colton,et al.  Lakatos-style methods in automated reasoning , 2003 .

[5]  Jacques Calmet,et al.  Artificial Intelligence, Automated Reasoning, and Symbolic Computation , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Simon Colton,et al.  An Application-based Comparison of Automated Theory Formation and Inductive Logic Programming , 2000, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[7]  MSc PhD Simon Colton BSc Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics , 2002, Distinguished Dissertations.

[8]  Simon Colton,et al.  The HR Program for Theorem Generation , 2002, CADE.

[9]  I. Lakatos,et al.  Proofs and Refutations: Frontmatter , 1976 .

[10]  Ashwin Srinivasan,et al.  Theories for Mutagenicity: A Study in First-Order and Feature-Based Induction , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Graham Steel Cross-domain concept formation using HR , 1999 .

[12]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[13]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  Automated Deduction — CADE-16 , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  Clausal Discovery , 1997, Machine Learning.

[15]  Simon Colton,et al.  Making Conjectures about Maple Functions , 2002, AISC.

[16]  Simon Colton,et al.  Refactorable Numbers - A Machine Invention , 1999 .

[17]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Automatic Identification of Mathematical Concepts , 2000, ICML.

[18]  Simon Colton,et al.  Employing Theory Formation to Guide Proof Planning , 2002, AISC.

[19]  Hannu Toivonen,et al.  Discovery of frequent DATALOG patterns , 1999, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[20]  William McCune,et al.  MACE 2.0 Reference Manual and Guide , 2001, ArXiv.

[21]  Michael Kohlhase,et al.  System Description: MathWeb, an Agent-Based Communication Layer for Distributed Automated Theorem Proving , 1999, CADE.

[22]  Siemion Fajtlowicz,et al.  On conjectures of Graffiti , 1988, Discret. Math..

[23]  Geoff Sutcliffe,et al.  The TPTP Problem Library , 1994, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[24]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming — CP 2001: 7th International Conference, CP 2001 Paphos, Cyprus, November 26 – December 1, 2001 Proceedings , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[25]  I. Lakatos PROOFS AND REFUTATIONS (I)*† , 1963, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.