Skip to main content
Log in

Automated Theorem Proving in Euler Diagram Systems

Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diagrammatic reasoning has the potential to be important in numerous application areas. This paper focuses on the simple, but widely used, Euler diagrams that form the basis of many more expressive logics. We have implemented a diagrammatic theorem prover, called Edith, which has access to four sound and complete sets of reasoning rules for Euler diagrams. Furthermore, for each rule set we develop a sophisticated heuristic to guide the search for a proof. This paper is about understanding how the choice of reasoning rule set affects the time taken to find proofs. Such an understanding will influence reasoning rule design in other logics. Moreover, this work specific to Euler diagrams directly benefits the many logics based on Euler diagrams. We investigate how the time taken to find a proof depends not only on the proof task but also on the reasoning system used. Our evaluation allows us to predict the best choice of reasoning system, given a proof task, in terms of time taken, and we extract a guide for defining reasoning rules for other logics in order to minimize time requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barwise, J., Etchemendy, J.: Hyperproof. CSLI Press, Stanford (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Benoy, F., Rodgers, P.: Evaluating the comprehension of Euler diagrams. In: 2nd International Workshop on Euler Diagrams, Paris, pp. 29–33 (2005)

  3. Chow, S., Ruskey, F.: Drawing area-proportional Venn and Euler diagrams. In: Proceedings of Graph Drawing 2003. LNCS, vol. 2912, pp. 466–477. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clark, R.: Failure mode modular de-composition using spider diagrams. In: 1st International Workshop on Euler Diagrams, Brighton 2004. ENTCS, vol. 134, pp. 19–31 (2005)

  5. DeChiara, R., Erra, U., Scarano, V.: VennFS: A Venn diagram file manager. In: 7th International Conference on Information Visualisation, London, pp. 120-126. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dechter, R., Pearl, J.: Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of A*. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 32(3), 505–536 (1985)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunn-Davies, H., Cunningham, R.: Propostional statecharts for agent interaction protocols. In: 1st International Workshop on Euler Diagrams, Brighton 2004. ENTCS, vol. 134, pp. 55–75. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)

  8. Edelkamp, S.: Memory limitations in artificial intelligence. In: Meyer, U. et al. (eds.),: Algorithms for Memory Hierarchies. LNCS, vol. 2625, pp. 233-250. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fish, A., Flower, J.: Investigating reasoning with constraint diagrams. In: Visual Languages and Formal Methods, Rome 2004. ENTCS, vol. 127, pp. 53–69. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fish, A., Flower, J., Howse, J.: The semantics of augmented constraint diagrams. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 16, 541–573 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fish, A., Stapleton, G.: Formal issues in languages based on closed curves. In: 11th International Conference on Distributed Multimedia Systems, International Workshop on Visual Languages and Computing, Knowledge Systems Institute, Grand Canyon, pp. 161–167 (2006)

  12. Flower, J., Howse, J.: Generating Euler diagrams. In: 2nd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Callaway Gardens, GA, LNAI 2317, pp. 61–75. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Flower, J., Masthoff, J., Stapleton, G.: Generating proofs with spider diagrams using heuristics. In: 10th International Conference on Distributed Multimedia Systems, International Conference on Visual Languages and Computing, Knowledge Systems Institute, Banff, pp. 279–285, (2004)

  14. Flower, J., Masthoff, J., Stapleton, G.: Generating readable proofs: a heuristic approach to theorem proving with spider diagrams. In: 3rd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Cambridge. LNAI, vol. 2980, pp. 166–181. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Flower, J., Rodgers, P., Mutton, P.: Layout metrics for Euler diagrams. In: 7th International Conference on Information Visualisation, London, pp. 272–280. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Flower, J., Stapleton, G.: Automated theorem proving with spider diagrams. In: Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium, Dunedin. ENTCS, vol. 91, pp. 116–132. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gil, J., Howse, J., Kent, S.: Formalising spider diagrams. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 130-137. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gelernter, H.: Realization of a geometry theorem proving machine. In: Computers and Thought, pp. 134–152. McGraw-Hill, New York (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hammer, E.: Logic and Visual Information. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Hart, P., Nilsson, N., Raphael, B.: A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. 4(2), 100–107 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hayes, P., Eskridge, T., Saavedra, R., Reichherzer, T., Mehrotra, M., Bobrovnikoff, D.: Collaborative knowledge capture in ontologies. In: 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, pp. 99-106. ACM Press, New York (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Howse, J., Schuman, S.: Precise visual modelling. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(3), 310–325 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Howse, J., Molina, F., Shin, S.-J., Taylor, J.: On diagram tokens and types. In: 2nd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Georgia. LNAI, vol. 2317, pp. 76–90. Spinger, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Howse, J., Stapleton, G., Flower, J., Taylor, J.: Corresponding regions in Euler diagrams. In: 2nd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Callaway Gardens, GA. LNAI, vol. 2317, pp. 146–160. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Howse, J., Stapleton, G., Taylor, J.: Spider diagrams. LMS J. Comput. Math. 8, 145–194 (2005)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Jamnik, M.: Mathematical Reasoning with Diagrams. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Jamnik, M., Bundy, A., Green, I.: Automation of diagrammatic reasoning. In: 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 528–533. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  28. John, C.: Reasoning with projected contours. In: 3rd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Cambridge. LNAI, vol. 2980, pp. 147–150. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kent, S.: Constraint diagrams: visualizing invariants in object oriented modelling. In: OOPSLA, pp. 327–341. ACM Press, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kestler, H., Muller, A., Gress, T., Buchholz, M.: Generalized Venn diagrams: a new method for visualizing complex genetic set relations. Bioinformatics 21(8), 1592-1595 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim, S.-K., Carrington, D.: Visualization of formal specifications. 6th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 102–109. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Larkin, J., Simon, H.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11, 5–99 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lemon, O., Pratt, I.: On spatial logic and the complexity of diagrammatic reasoning. Mach. Graph. Vis. 6(1), 89–108 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lovdahl, J.: Towards a visual editing environment for the languages of the semantic web. Ph.D. thesis, Linkoping University (2002)

  35. Luger, G.: Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  36. MacKenzie, D.: Computers and the sociology of mathematical proof. In: 3rd Northern Formal Methods Workshop, http://ewic.bcs.org/conferences/1998/3rdfacs/papers/paper13.pdf (1998)

  37. McLaughlin, J., Gallinger, S.: Cancer epidemiology. In: The Basic Science of Oncology, pp. 4–24. McGraw-Hill, New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Misue, K., Eades, P., Lai, W., Sugiyama, K.: Layout adjustment and the mental map. Technical Report IIAS-RR-94-1E, Fujitsu Laboratories (1994)

  39. Molina, F.: Reasoning with Extended Venn-Peirce Diagrammatic Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Brighton (2001)

  40. Oberlander, J., Stenning, K., Cox, R.: Hyperproof: the multimodal moral. In: 2nd Conference on Information-theoretic Approaches to Logic, Language, and Computation. Regent’s College, London (1996)

  41. Patrascoiu, O., Thompson, S., Rodgers, P.: Tableaux for diagrammatic reasoning. In: 11th International Conference on Distributed Multimedia Systems, International Workshop on Visual Languages and Computing, Knowledge Systems Institute, Banff, pp. 279–286 (2005)

  42. Peirce, C.: Collected Papers, vol. 4. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1933)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Puigsegur, J., Agusti, J.: Visual logic programming by means of diagram transformations. In: Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, La Coruna, pp. 311–328 (1998)

  44. Rector, A.: Specifying values in OWL: value partitions and value Sets. W3C Editors Draft 02 (2005)

  45. Rodgers, P., Mutton, P., Flower, J.: Dynamic Euler diagram drawing. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, Rome, pp. 147–156. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sawamura, H., Kiyozuka, K.: JVenn: a visual reasoning system with diagrams and sentences. In: 1st International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Edinburgh. LNAI, vol. 1889, pp. 271–285. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Shin, S.-J.: The Logical Status of Diagrams. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Stapleton, G.: A survey of reasoning systems based on Euler diagrams. In: 1st International Workshop on Euler Diagrams, Brighton 2004. ENTCS, vol. 134, pp. 127-151. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Stapleton, G., Howse, J., Taylor, J.: A constraint diagram reasoning system. In: 9th International Conference on Distributed Multimedia Systems, International Conference on Visual Languages and Computing, Knowledge Systems Institute, Miami, pp. 263–270 (2003)

  51. Stapleton, G., Howse, J., Taylor, J.: A decidable constraint diagram reasoning system. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 541–573 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Stapleton, G., Masthoff, J., Flower, J., Fish, A., Southern, J.: Appendices for automated theorem proving in Euler diagram systems. Technical Report VMG.06.2, University of Brighton, available from www.cmis.brighton.ac.uk/research/vmg/publications.htm (2006)

  53. Stapleton, G., Thompson, S., Howse, J., Taylor, J.: The expressiveness of spider diagrams. J. Log. Comput. 14(6), 857–880 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  54. Swoboda, N.: Implementing Euler/Venn reasoning systems. In: Anderson, M., Meyer, B., Oliver, P., (eds.), Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning, pp. 371–386. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Swoboda, N., Allwein, G.: Using DAG transformations to verify Euler/Venn homogeneous and Euler/Venn FOL heterogeneous rules of inference. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 3(2), 136–149 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Verroust, A., Viaud, M.-L.: Ensuring the drawability of Euler diagrams for up to eight sets. In: 3rd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Cambridge. LNAI, vol. 2980, pp. 128–141. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Winterstein, D., Bundy, A., Gurr, C.: Dr Doodle: a diagrammatic theorem prover. In: International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 3097, pp. 331–335. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Winterstein, D., Bundy, A., Jamnik, M.: On differences between the real and physical plane. In: 3rd International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Cambridge. LNAI, vol. 2980, pp. 29–31. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zhao, Y., Lövdahl, J.: A reuse based method of developing the ontology for e-procurement. In: Nordic Conference on Web Services, pp. 101–112 (2003)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gem Stapleton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stapleton, G., Masthoff, J., Flower, J. et al. Automated Theorem Proving in Euler Diagram Systems. J Autom Reasoning 39, 431–470 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9069-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9069-y

Keywords

Navigation