Abstract
In this paper we generalize the notion of method for proof planning. While we adopt the general structure of methods introduced by Alan Bundy, we make an essential advancement in that we strictly separate the declarative knowledge from the procedural knowledge. This change of paradigm not only leads to representations easier to understand, it also enables modeling the important activity of formulating meta-methods, that is, operators that adapt the declarative part of existing methods to suit novel situations. Thus this change of representation leads to a considerably strengthened planning mechanism.
After presenting our declarative approach towards methods we describe the basic proof planning process with these. Then we define the notion of meta-method, provide an overview of practical examples and illustrate how meta-methods can be integrated into the planning process.
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 314 (D2)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
L. Brownston, R. Farrell, E. Kant, and N. Martin. Programming Expert Systems in OPS5 — An Introduction to Rule-Based Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA, 1985.
A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In Proc. of 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120. Springer, 1988.
A. Bundy. A science of reasoning: Extended abstract. In Proc. of 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 633–640. Springer, 1990.
R. Constable et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1986.
R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2:189–208, 1971.
M. Gordon, R. Milner, and C. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanized Logic of Computation. LNCS 78. Springer, 1979.
X. Huang. Reconstructing proofs at the assertion level. In Proc. of 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Springer, 1994.
X. Huang, M. Kerber, M. Kohlhase, E. Melis, D. Nesmith, J. Richts, and J. Siekmann. Ω-MKRP — a proof development environment. In Proc. of 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Springer, 1994.
D. Hutter. Guiding induction proofs. In Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 147–161. Springer, 1990.
E. Melis. Change of representation in theorem proving by analogy. SEKI-Report SR-93-07, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1993.
A. Newell. The heuristic of George Polya and its relation to artificial intelligence. In R. Groner, M. Groner and W. F. Bishof, editors, Methods of Heuristics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA, 195–243.
G. Pólya. How to Solve it. Princeton Univ. Press, 1945.
I. Sonntag and J. Denzinger. Extending automatic theorem proving by planning. SEKI-Report SR-93-02 (SFB), Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1993.
K. VanLehn. Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In M. I. Posner, editor, Foundations of Cognitive Science, chapter 14. MIT Press, 1989.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Huang, X., Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M., Richts, J. (1994). Adapting methods to novel tasks in proof planning. In: Nebel, B., Dreschler-Fischer, L. (eds) KI-94: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. KI 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 861. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58467-6_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58467-6_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58467-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48979-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive