Critical Agents Supporting Interactive Theorem Proving

  • Christoph Benzmüller
  • Volker Sorge
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1695)


We introduce a resource adaptive agent mechanism which supports the user of an interactive theorem proving system. The mechanism, an extension of [5], uses a two layered architecture of agent societies to suggest applicable commands together with appropriate command argument instantiations. Experiments with this approach show that its effectiveness can be further improved by introducing a resource concept. In this paper we provide an abstract view on the overall mechanism, motivate the necessity of an appropriate resource concept and discuss its realization within the agent architecture.


Agent Society Formal Argument Complexity Rating Agent Architecture Automate Deduction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P.B. Andrews. An Introduction To Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 1986.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.B. Andrews, M. Bishop, S. Issar, D. Nesmith, F. Pfenning, and H. Xi. Tps: A Theorem Proving System for Classical Type Theory. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16(3):321–353, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Benzmüller, L. Cheikhrouhou, D. Fehrer, A. Fiedler, X. Huang, M. Kerber, M. Kohlhase, K. Konrad, E. Melis, A. Meier, W. Schaarschmidt, J. Siekmann, and V. Sorge. ΩMega: Towards a Mathematical Assistant. In W. McCune, editor, Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-14), LNAI, Townsville, Australia, 1997. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Benzmüller and M. Kohlhase. LEO — a Higher-Order Theorem Prover. In C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, editors, Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1421 in LNAI, pages 139–144, Lindau, Germany, 1998. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Benzmüller and V. Sorge. A Blackboard Architecture for Guiding Interactive Proofs. In F. Giunchiglia, editor, Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems and Applications, Proceedings of the of the 8th International Conference AIMSA’98, number 1480 in LNAI, pages 102–114, Sozopol, Bulgaria, October 1998. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Benzmüller and V. Sorge. Towards Fine-Grained Proof Planning with Critical Agents. In M. Kerber, editor, Informal Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Automated Reasoning Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice in conjunction with AISB’99 Convention, pages 20–22, Edinburgh, Scotland, 8–9 April 1999. extended abstract.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bundy. The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-9), volume 310 of LNCS, Argonne, IL, USA, 1988. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Denzinger and I. Dahn. Cooperating Theorem Provers. In W. Bibel and P. Schmitt, editors, Automated Deduction — A Basis for Applications, volume 2, pages 483–416. Kluwer, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Denzinger D. Fuchs. Knowledge-Based Cooperation between Theorem Provers by TECHS. Seki Report SR-97-11, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Fisher. An Open Approach to Concurrent Theorem Proving. In J. Geller, H. Kitano, and C. Suttner, editors, Parallel Processing for Artificial Intelligence, volume 3. Elsevier/North Holland, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Fisher and A. Ireland. Multi-Agent Proof-Planning. In Workshop on Using AI Methods in Deduction at CADE-15, July 6–9 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Gentzen. Untersuchungen über das Logische Schließen I und II. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39:176–210, 405–431, 1935.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Gerber and C.G. Jung. Resource Management for Boundedly Optimal Agent Societies. In Proceedings of the ECAI’98 Workshop on Monitoring and Control of Real-Time Intelligent Systems, pages 23–28, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.J. Gordon, R. Milner, and C.P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanized Logic of Computation, volume 78 of LNCS. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1979.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.J.C. Gordon and T.F. Melham. Introduction to HOL. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.G. Jung. Experimenting with Layered, Resource-Adapting Agents in the Robocup Simulation. In Proceedings of the ROBOCUP’98 Workshop, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. McCune and L. Wos. Otter CADE-13 Competition Incarnations. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 18(2):211–220, 1997. Special Issue on the CADE-13 Automated Theorem Proving System Competition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S.C. Shapiro. Compiling Deduction Rules from a Semantic Network into a Set of Process. In Abstracts of Workshop on Automated Deduction, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977. MIT. Abstract only.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Siekmann, S. M. Hess, C. Benzmüller, L. Cheikhrouhou, D. Fehrer, A. Fiedler, M. Kohlhase, K. Konrad, E. Melis, A. Meier, and V. Sorge. LΩUI: A Distributed Graphical User Interface for the Interactive Proof System ΩMEGA. Submitted to the International Workshop on User Interfaces for Theorem Provers, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H.A. Simon. Models of Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Zilberstein. Models of Bounded Rationality. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Rational Agency, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Benzmüller
    • 1
  • Volker Sorge
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich InformatikUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations