Proof Planning with Multiple Strategies
Humans have different problem solving strategies at their disposal and they can flexibly employ several strategies when solving a complex problem, whereas previous theorem proving and planning systems typically employ a single strategy or a hard coded combination of a few strategies. We introduce multi-strategy proof planning that allows for combining a number of strategies and for switching flexibly between strategies in a proof planning process. Thereby proof planning becomes more robust since it does not necessarily fail if one problem solving mechanism fails. Rather it can reason about preference of strategies and about failures. Moreover, our strategies provide a means for structuring the vast amount of knowledge such that the planner can cope with the otherwise overwhelming knowledge in mathematics.
KeywordsOpen Goal Control Rule Multiple Strategy Constraint Solver Partial Plan
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Gandalf. In CASC-14 http://www.cs.jcu.edu.au/~tptp/casc-14/, 1997.
- 3.C. Benzmüller, L. Cheikhrouhou, D. Fehrer, A. Fiedler, X. Huang, M. Kerber, M. Kohlhase, K. Konrad, A. Meier, E. Melis, W. Schaarschmidt, J. Siekmann, and V. Sorge. OMEGA: Towards a mathematical assistant. In Proc. CADE-14, pages 252–255. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
- 4.C. Benzmüller, M. Jamnik, M. Kerber, and V. Sorge. Agent Based Mathematical Reasoning? In 7th CALCULEMUS Workshop, pages 21–32, 1999.Google Scholar
- 6.A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In Proc. of CADE-9, pages 111–120, 1988.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Denzinger and M. Fuchs. Cooperation of heterogeneous provers. In Proc. of IJCAI, pages 10–15. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.Google Scholar
- 10.B. Hayes-Roth. A blackboard architecture for control. Artificial Intelligence, pages 251–321, 1985.Google Scholar
- 12.W.W. McCune. Otter 2.0 users guide. Technical Report ANL-90/9, Argonne National Laboratory, 1990.Google Scholar
- 13.E. Melis. AI-techniques in proof planning. In Proc. of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 494–498. Kluwer, 1998.Google Scholar
- 14.E. Melis. Combining proof planning with constraint solving. In Proc. of Calculemus and Types’98, 1998.Google Scholar
- 15.E. Melis. The“limit” domain. In Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Planning Systems (AIPS’98), pages 199–206, 1998.Google Scholar
- 16.E. Melis and A. Meier. Proof planning with multiple strategies. Seki report SR-99-06, Universität des Saarlandes, FB Informatik, 1999.Google Scholar
- 17.E. Melis and A. Meier. Proof planning with multiple strategies II. In FLoC’99 workshop on Strategies in Automated Deduction, pages 61–72, 1999.Google Scholar
- 18.E. Melis and J.H. Siekmann. Knowledge-based proof planning. Artificial Intelligence, 1999.Google Scholar
- 19.E. Melis and C. Ullrich. Flexibly interleaving processes. In K.-D. Althoff and R. Bergmann, editors, International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, volume 1650 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 263–275. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
- 22.D.S. Weld. An introduction to least committment planning. AI magazine, 15(4):27–61, 1994.Google Scholar
- 23.D.E. Wilkins and K.L. Myers. A multiagent planning architecture. In Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on AI Planning Systems (AIPS’98), pages 154–162, 1998.Google Scholar
- 24.A. Wolf. Strategy selection for automated theorem proving. In Proc. of AIMSA’ 98, pages 452–465, 1998.Google Scholar