Reconstruction Proofs at the Assertion Level

Most automated theorem provers suffer from the problem that they can produce proofs only in formalisms difficult to understand even for experienced mathematicians. Effort has been made to reconstruct natural deduction (ND) proofs from such machine generated proofs. Although the single steps in ND proofs are easy to understand, the entire proof is usually at a low level of abstraction, containing too many tedious steps. To obtain proofs similar to those found in mathematical textbooks, we propose a new formalism, called ND style proofs at the assertion level, where derivations are mostly justified by the application of a definition or a theorem. After characterizing the structure of compound ND proof segments allowing assertion level justification, we show that the same derivations can be achieved by domain-specific inference rules as well. Furthermore, these rules can be represented compactly in a tree structure. Finally, we describe a system called PROVERB, which substantially shortens ND proofs by abstracting them to the assertion level and then transforms them into natural language.

[1]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Learning Plan Schemata From Observation: Explanation-Based Learning for Plan Recognition , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  G. Gentzen Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I , 1935 .

[3]  Xiaorong Huang,et al.  Human oriented proof presentation - a reconstructive approach , 1996, DISKI.

[4]  Michael Brady,et al.  Natural Language Generation as a Computational Problem: an Introduction , 1983 .

[5]  F. Dick A survey of the project Automath , 1980 .

[6]  E. Shortliffe Computer-based medical consultations: mycin (elsevier north holland , 1976 .

[7]  Peter B. Andrews Transforming Matings into Natural Deduction Proofs , 1980, CADE.

[8]  Xiaorong Huang Applications of Assertions as Elementary Tactics in Proof Planning , 1992, AIMSA.

[9]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN , 1976 .

[10]  William B. Thompson,et al.  Reconstructive Expert System Explanation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Daniel L. Chester,et al.  The Translation of Formal Proofs into English , 1976, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Andrew. Edgar Natural language explanation of natural deduction proofs , 1991 .

[13]  Rance Cleaveland,et al.  Implementing mathematics with the Nuprl proof development system , 1986 .

[14]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  Presenting Intuitive Deductions via Symmetric Simplification , 1990, CADE.

[15]  Alan Bundy,et al.  -mkrp: a Proof Development Environment , 1994 .

[16]  de Ng Dick Bruijn,et al.  A survey of the project Automath , 1980 .

[17]  Richard Fikes,et al.  Learning and Executing Generalized Robot Plans , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Xiaorong Huang An Explanatory Framework for Human Theorem Proving , 1992, GWAI.

[19]  Christoph Lingenfelder Transformation and structuring of computer generated proofs , 1990 .

[20]  Michael J. C. Gordon,et al.  Edinburgh LCF: A mechanised logic of computation , 1979 .

[21]  Dale A. Miller,et al.  Proofs in Higher-Order Logic , 1983 .

[22]  Raymond J. Mooney Learning plan schemata from observation: explanation-based learning for plan recognition , 1990 .

[23]  Jörg H. Siekmann,et al.  Omega-MKRP: A Proof Development Environment , 1994, CADE.

[24]  Robin Milner,et al.  Edinburgh lcf: a mechanized logic of computation , 1978 .

[25]  P. Johnson-Laird Mental models , 1989 .

[26]  James R. Slagle,et al.  An explanation facility for today's expert systems , 1989, IEEE Expert.

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

[28]  Peter Deussen,et al.  Halbgruppen und Automaten , 1971, Heidelberger Taschenbücher.