Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 259–286 | Cite as

Living Book – Deduction, Slicing, and Interaction

  • P. Baumgartner
  • U. Furbach
  • M. Gross-Hardt
  • A. Sinner


Living Book is a system for the management of personalized and scenario-specific teaching material. The main goal of the system is to support active, explorative, and self-determined learning in lectures, tutorials, and self-study. Living Book includes a course on “logic for computer scientists,” with uniform access to various tools such as theorem provers and an interactive tableau editor. It is routinely used in teaching undergraduate courses at our university. This paper describes Living Book, together with its use of theorem-proving technology as a core component in the knowledge management system (KMS) and the use of this new concept in academic teaching. The KMS provides a scenario management component in which teachers may describe those parts of given documents that are relevant in order to achieve a certain learning goal. The task of the KMS is to assemble new documents from a database of elementary units called “slices” (definitions, theorems, and so on) in a scenario-based way (such as, “I want to prepare for an exam and need to learn about resolution”). The computation of such assemblies is carried out by a model-generating theorem prover for first-order logic with a default negation principle. Its input consists of metadata that describes the dependencies between different slices and logic-programming style rules that describe the scenario-specific composition of slices. Additionally, users may assess what units they know or don't know. This information is stored in a user model, which is taken into account to compute a model that specifies the assembly of a personalized document. This paper introduces the e-learning context we are faced with, motivates our choice of logic, and sketches the newly developed calculus used in the KMS. Furthermore, the application and evaluation of Living Book are presented.

e-learning theorem proving knowledge representation knowledge management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baumgartner, P.: Hyper tableaux-The next generation, in H. de Swaart (ed.), Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1397, Springer, 1998, pp. 60–76.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner, P.: FDPLL-A first-order Davis-Putnam-Logeman-Loveland procedure, in D. McAllester (ed.), CADE-17-The 17th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1831, Springer, 2000, pp. 200–219.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner, P. and Furbach, U.: Automated deduction techniques for the management of personalized documents, Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence-Special Issue on Mathematical Knowledge Management 38(1) (2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U. and Niemelä, I.: Hyper tableaux, in Proc. JELIA 96, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1126, Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner, P., Gross-Hardt, M. and Simon, A. B.: Living book-An interactive and person-alized book, in V. Milutinovic (ed.), SSGRR 2002s-International Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education, e-Science, and e-Medicine on the Internet, Published electronically (, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Dix, J. and Konolige, K.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes 73, CSLI Publications, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bry, F. and Kraus, M.: Perspectives for electronic books in the World Wide Web age, The Electronic Library Journal 20(4) (2002), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahn, I.: Slicing book technology-Providing online support for textbooks, in H. Hoyer (ed.), Proc. of the 20th World Conference on Open and Distance Learning, Düsseldorf, Germany, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dahn, I.: Using networks for advanced personalization of documents, in V. Milutinovic (ed.), Proc. SSGRR 2001, L'Aquila/Italy, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denis, A. R. and Valacich, J. R.: Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dix, J., Furbach, U. and Niemelä, I.: Nonmonotonic reasoning: Towards efficient calculi and implementations, in A. Voronkov and A. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Automated Reasoning, Elsevier, 2001, pp. 1121–1234.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans, D., Armbruster, M., Dahn, I., Pook, A., Brady, A., Wienand, B., Dahn, A., Golcher, F. and Tabelow, K.: Trial-solution evaluation report, Deliverable D13, available on request, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming, in R. Kowalski and K. Bowen (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, 1988, pp. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goller, C., Letz, R., Mayr, K. and Schumann, J.: SETHEO V3.2: Recent developments-System abstract, in A. Bundy (ed.), Automated Deduction-CADE 12, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 778–782.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    In2Math: Interactive elements in mathematics and computer science education for undergraduates,, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Letz, R.: Clausal tableaux, in W. Bibel and P. H. Schmitt (eds.), Automated Deduction. A Basis for Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manthey, R. and Bry, F.: SATCHMO: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, Argonne, Illinois, May 1988, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 310, Springer, 1988, pp. 415–434.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Melis, E., Andres, E., Büdenbender, J., Frischauf, A., Goguadze, G., Libbrecht, P., Pollet, M. and Ullrich, C.: ActiveMath: A generic and adaptive web-based learning environment, J. Artificial Intelligence and Education 12(4) (2001), 385–407Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melis, E., Büdenbender, J., Goguadze, G., Libbrecht, P. and Ullrich, C.: Knowledge representation and management in ActiveMath, Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 38(1-3) (2003), 47–64.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Principe, J. C., Euliano, N. R. and Lefebvre, W. C.: Innovating adaptive and neural systems instruction with interactive electronic books, Proc. IEEE 88(1) (2000), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson, J. A.: Automated deduction with hyper-resolution, Internat. J. Comput. Math. 1 (1965), 227–234.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sakama, C.: Possible model semantics for disjunctive databases, in W. Kim, J.-M. Nicholas and S. Nishio (eds.), Proceedings First International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD-89), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 337–351.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trial-Solution: Project supported by European commission,, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A. and Schlipf, J. S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, J. ACM 38 (1991), 620–650.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vassileva, J.: Dynamic courseware generation at the www, in Proc. of the 8th World Conference on AI and Education (AIED'97), Kobe, Japan, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weidenbach, C., Afshordel, B., Brahm, U., Cohrs, C., Engel, T., Keen, E., Theobalt, C. and Topi´c, D.: System description: SPASS version 1.0.0, in H. Ganzinger (ed.), CADE-16-The 16th International Conference on Automated Deduction (Trento, Italy, 1999), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1632, Springer, 1999, pp. 378–382.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wernhard, C.: System description: KRHyper, Fachberichte Informatik 14-2003, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Institut für Informatik, Rheinau 1, D-56075 Koblenz, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Baumgartner
    • 1
  • U. Furbach
    • 1
  • M. Gross-Hardt
    • 1
  • A. Sinner
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität Koblenz-Landau and MPI InformatikSaarbrücken. e-mail

Personalised recommendations