Skip to main content

Extensions to a generalization critic for inductive proof

  • Session 1B
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automated Deduction — Cade-13 (CADE 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1104))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In earlier papers a critic for automatically generalizing conjectures in the context of failed inductive proofs was presented. The critic exploits the partial success of the search control heuristic known as rippling. Through empirical testing a natural generalization and extension of the basic critic emerged. Here we describe our extended generalization critic together with some promising experimental results.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D.A. Basin and T. Walsh. A calculus for and termination of rippling. Technical report, MPI, 1994. To appear in special issue of the Journal of Automated Reasoning.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979. ACM monograph series.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120. Springer-Verlag, 1988. Longer version available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 349.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Bundy, A. Stevens, F. van Harmelen, A. Ireland, and A. Smaill. Rippling: A heuristic for guiding inductive proofs. Artificial Intelligence, 62:185–253, 1993. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, C. Horn, and A. Smaill. The Oyster-Clam system. In M.E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 647–648. Springer-Verlag, 1990. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence No. 449. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 507.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M.J. Gordon, A.J. Milner, and C.P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF — A mechanised logic of computation, volume 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Hesketh, A. Bundy, and A. Smaill. Using middle-out reasoning to control the synthesis of tail-recursive programs. In Deepak Kapur, editor, 11th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 310–324, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA, June 1992. Published as Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No 607.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J.T. Hesketh. Using Middle-Out Reasoning to Guide Inductive Theorem Proving. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Ireland. The Use of Planning Critics in Mechanizing Inductive Proofs. In A. Voronkov, editor, International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning — LPAR 92, St. Petersburg, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence No. 624, pages 178–189. Springer-Verlag, 1992. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 592.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Ireland and A. Bundy. Productive use of failure in inductive proof. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16(1–2), 1996. Also available as DAI Research Paper No 716, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Kaldewai J. Programming: The Derivation of Algorithms. Prentice Hall, London, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Kreisel. Mathematical logic. In T.L. Saaty, editor, Lectures on Modern Mathematics, volume III, pages 95–195. John Wiley and Sons, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Michaelson and N. Scaife. Prototyping a parallel vision system in Standard ML. Journal of Functional Programming, 5:345–382, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. Miller and G. Nadathur. An overview of λProlog. In R. Bowen, K. & Kowalski, editor, Proceedings of the Fifth International Logic Programming Conference/Fifth Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. L Pierre. An automatic generalization method for the inductive proof of replicated and parallel architectures. In R.Kumar & T.kropf, editor, Theorem Provers in Circuit Design. LNCS 901, Springer-Verlag, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

M. A. McRobbie J. K. Slaney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ireland, A., Bundy, A. (1996). Extensions to a generalization critic for inductive proof. In: McRobbie, M.A., Slaney, J.K. (eds) Automated Deduction — Cade-13. CADE 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1104. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61511-3_68

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61511-3_68

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61511-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68687-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics