Advertisement

Reconstructing proofs at the assertion level

  • Xiaorong Huang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 814)

Abstract

Most automated theorem provers suffer from the problem that they can produce proofs only in formalisms difficult to understand even for experienced mathematicians. Effort has been made to reconstruct natural deduction (ND) proofs from such machine generated proofs. Although the single steps in ND proofs are easy to understand, the entire proof is usually at a low level of abstraction, containing too many tedious steps. To obtain proofs similar to those found in mathematical textbooks, we propose a new formalism, called ND style proofs at the assertion level, where derivations are mostly justified by the application of a definition or a theorem. After characterizing the structure of compound ND proof segments allowing assertion level justification, we show that the same derivations can be achieved by domain-specific inference rules as well. Furthermore, these rules can be represented compactly in a tree structure. Finally, we describe a system called PROVERB, which substantially shortens ND proofs by abstracting them to the assertion level and then transforms them into natural language.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [And80]
    P. B. Andrews. Transforming matings into natural deduction proofs. In Proc. of the 5th CADE, pages 281–292. Springer, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. [Bun88]
    A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In Proc. of 9th CADE, pages 111–120. Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [CAB+86]
    [CAB+86] R.L. Constable et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [Che76]
    D. Chester. The translation of formal proofs into English. AI, 7:178–216, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. [dB80]
    N. G. de Bruijn. A survey of the project AUTOMATH. In J. P. Seldin and J. R. Hindley, editors, To H.B. Curry — Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pages 579–606. Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. [Deu71]
    P. Deussen. Halbgruppen und Automaten. Springer, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. [EP93]
    A. Edgar and F J. Pelletier. Natural language explanation of natural deduction proofs. In Proc. of the first Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics. Simon Fraser University, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [FHN72]
    R. R. Fikes, P. E. Hart, and N. J. Nilsson. Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence, 3:251–288, 1972.Google Scholar
  9. [Gen35]
    G. Gentzen. Untersuchungen über das logische schlie\en i. Math. Zeitschrift, 39:176–210, 1935.Google Scholar
  10. [GMW79]
    M. Gordon, R. Milner, and C. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanized Logic of Computation. LNCS 78. Springer, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. [HKK+94]
    X. Huang et al. Ω-mkrp — a proof development environment. In these proceedings, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [Hua91]
    X. Huang. An extensible natural calculus for argument presentation. SEKI-Report SR-91-03, Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [Hua92]
    X. Huang. Applications of assertions as elementary tactics in proof planning. In V. Sgurev and B. du Boulay, editors, Artificial Intelligence V — Methodology, Systems, Applications, pages 25–34. Elsevier, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [Hua93]
    X. Huang. An explanatory framework for human theorem proving. In H. J. Ohlbach, editor, GWAI-92: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 671, pages 55–66. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [Hua94]
    X. Huang. Human Oriented Proof Presentation: A Reconstructive Approach. PhD thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, 1994, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. [JL83]
    P. N. Johnson-Laird. Mental Models. Harvard Univ. Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. [Lin90]
    C. Lingenfelder. Transformation and Structuring of Computer Generated Proofs. PhD thesis, Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [McD83]
    D. D. McDonald. Natural language generation as a computational problem. In Brady/Berwick: Computational Models of Discourse. MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. [Mil83]
    D. A. Miller. Proofs in Higher-Order Logic. PhD thesis, CMU, Pittsburgh, 1983.Google Scholar
  20. [Moo90]
    R. J. Mooney. Learning plan schemata from observation: Explanantionbased learning for plan recognition. Cognitive Science, 14:483–509, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [New90]
    A. Newell. Unified Theories in Cognition. Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. [Pfe87]
    F. Pfenning. Proof Transformation in Higher-Order Logic. PhD thesis, CMU, Pittsburgh, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [PN90]
    F. Pfenning and D. Nesmith. Presenting intuitive deductions via symmetric simplification. In Proc. of 10th CADE, pages 336–350. Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. [Sho76]
    E. H. Shortliffe. Computer-Based Medical Consultations: MYCIN. Elsevier, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. [WS89]
    M. R. Wick and J. R. Slagle. An explanation facility for today's expert systems. IEEE Expert, 4(1):26–36, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. [WT92]
    M. R. Wick and W. B. Thompson. Reconstructive expert system explanation. Artificial Intelligence, 54:33–70, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaorong Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich InformatikUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations