Intelligent CAI course in the first-order logic

Automated theorem provers for first-order logic usually operate on sets of first-order clauses. It is well-known that the translation of a formula in full first-order logic to a clausal normal form (CNF) can crucially affect performance of a theorem prover. In our recent work we introduced a modification of first-order logic extended by the first class boolean sort and syntactical constructs that mirror features of programming languages. We called this logic FOOL. Formulas in FOOL can be translated to ordinary first-order formulas and checked by first-order theorem provers. While this translation is straightforward, it does not result in a CNF that can be efficiently handled by state-of-the-art theorem provers which use superposition calculus. In this paper we present a new CNF translation algorithm for FOOL that is friendly and efficient for superposition-based first-order provers. We implemented the algorithm in the Vampire theorem prover and evaluated it on a large number of problems coming from formalisation of mathematics and program analysis. Our experimental results show an increase of performance of the prover with our CNF translation compared to the naive translation.

ICAI (Intelligent CAI) differs from traditional CAI in the flexibility it brings to the student-system interaction, thereby encouraging an active and exploratory approach to learning rather than a more receptive and objective-oriented one. Various forms of learning which have been proposed in the psychological and educational literature are briefly presented, after which a review is made of a number of ICAI systems in terms of the kinds of learning they support. It is concluded that the potential power of ICAI systems to foster learning is still beyond our ability to specify formally the rules which regulate learning in complex situations, such as those involved in tutorial dialogues.

Formal verification involves the use of logical and computational methods to establish claims that are expressed in precise mathematical terms. These can include ordinary mathematical theorems, as well as claims that pieces of hardware or software, network protocols, and mechanical and hybrid systems meet their specifications. In practice, there is not a sharp distinction between verifying a piece of mathematics and verifying the correctness of a system: formal verification requires describing hardware and software systems in mathematical terms, at which point establishing claims as to their correctness becomes a form of theorem proving. Conversely, the proof of a mathematical theorem may require a lengthy computation, in which case verifying the truth of the theorem requires verifying that the computation does what it is supposed to do. The gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof, and twentieth-century developments in logic show most if not all conventional proof methods can be reduced to a small set of axioms and rules in any of a number of foundational systems. With this reduction, there are two ways that a computer can help establish a claim: it can help find a proof in the first place, and it can help verify that a purported proof is correct. Automated theorem proving focuses on the “finding” aspect. Resolution theorem provers, tableau theorem provers, fast satisfiability solvers, and so on provide means of establishing the validity of formulas in propositional and first-order logic. Other systems provide search procedures and decision procedures for specific languages and domains, such as linear or nonlinear expressions over the integers or the real numbers. Architectures like SMT (“satisfiability modulo theories”) combine domain-general search methods with domain-specific procedures. Computer algebra systems and specialized mathematical software packages provide means of carrying out mathematical computations, establishing mathematical bounds, or finding mathematical objects. A calculation can be viewed as a proof as well, and these systems, too, help establish mathematical claims. Automated reasoning systems strive for power and efficiency, often at the expense of guaranteed soundness. Such systems can have bugs, and it can be difficult to ensure that the results they deliver are correct. In contrast, interactive theorem proving focuses on the “verification” aspect of theorem proving, requiring that every claim is supported by a proof in a suitable axiomatic foundation. This sets a very high standard: every rule of inference and every step of a calculation has to be justified by appealing to prior definitions and theorems, all the way down to basic axioms and rules. In fact, most such systems provide fully elaborated “proof objects” that can be communicated to other systems and checked independently. Constructing such proofs typically requires much more input and interaction from users, but it allows us to obtain deeper and more complex proofs. The Lean Theorem Prover aims to bridge the gap between interactive and automated theorem proving, by situating automated tools and methods in a framework that supports user interaction and the construction of fully specified axiomatic proofs. The goal is to support both mathematical reasoning and reasoning about complex systems, and to verify claims in both domains.

In this paper, we present a system that translates first order logic (FOL) formulas into natural language (NL) sentences. The motivation comes from an intelligent tutoring system teaching logic as a knowledge representation language, where it is used as a means for feedback to the users. FOL to NL conversion is achieved by using a rule-based approach, where we exploit the pattern matching capabilities of rules. So, the system consists of a rule-based component and a lexicon. The rule-based unit implements the conversion process, which is based on a linguistic analysis of a FOL sentence, and the lexicon provides lexical and grammatical information that helps in producing the NL sentences. The whole system is implemented in Jess, a java-based expert system shell. The conversion process currently covers a restricted set of FOL formulas.

The role of games in computing science has been given some consideration in the literature. We aim to design games that can be used for teaching logic. Specifically, we build on the Minefield game used in the Stanford Intro to Logic course, and present a version, which we call MineFOL, that incorporates time constraints. We also move beyond the Stanford examples in that we provide a formalisation of the game, with a view to eventually generating game instances automatically as well as from user input, and show how MineFOL can be used as a learning tool. We also developed an online platform supporting learners in at least three ways. First, the learners can practice reasoning in First Order Logic (FOL) and proving strategies such as resolution through various MineFOL games. Second, the learners can practice formalisation in FOL, by allowing learners to build their own games. Third, the learners become aware of the need of interleaving various technologies to solve a logicbased task. In this line, MineFOL is formalised in such way to allow augmenting reasoning in FOL with search strategies.

In this paper, we share our experiences concerning the introduction of the Android-based self-study app AXolotl within the first-semester logic course offered at our university. This course is mandatory for students majoring in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. AXolotl was used as part of an optional lab assignment bridging clausal reasoning and SAT solving with classical reasoning, proof construction, and first-order logic. The app provides an intuitive interface for proof construction in various logical calculi and aids the students through rule application. The goal of the lab assignment was to help students make a smoother transition from clausal and decompositional reasoning used earlier in the course to inferential and contextual reasoning required for proof construction and first-order logic. We observed that the lab had a positive influence on students' understanding and end the paper with a discussion of these results.

We outline a method for proving theorems in first-order logic with equality using some equational logics and their associated multiple-valued propositional logics, and describe an application of the method that makes use of the automated theorem-prover Otter to prove a range of theorems from the TPTP library of problems in first-order logic with equality.

This paper proposes a method to automatically generate composite services. The function of a service is specified by its Inputs, Output, Preconditions, and Result (IOPR). These functional descriptions are translated into a first-order logic (FOL) formula. An Automatic Theorem Prover (ATP) is used to generate a proof from known services (as axioms) to the composite service (as an object formula). Based on the deductive program synthesis theory, the implementation of the composite service is extracted from the proof. The “proof to program” method used here guarantees the completeness and correctness of the result. An brief introduction of the prototype system is given.KeywordsSemantic Web ServicesAutomatic Service CompositionAutomatic Theorem ProofDeductive Program Synthesis

Liveness properties are traditionally proven using a ranking function that maps system states to some well-founded set. Carrying out such proofs in first-order logic enables automation by SMT solvers. However, reasoning about many natural ranking functions is beyond reach of existing solvers. To address this, we introduce the notion of implicit rankings — first-order formulas that soundly approximate the reduction of some ranking function without defining it explicitly. We provide recursive constructors of implicit rankings that can be instantiated and composed to induce a rich family of implicit rankings. Our constructors use quantifiers to approximate reasoning about useful primitives such as cardinalities of sets and unbounded sums that are not directly expressible in first-order logic. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our implicit rankings by verifying liveness properties of several intricate examples, including Dijkstra’s k-state, 4-state and 3-state self-stabilizing protocols.

This paper offers a new practical approach toward automated commonsense reasoning with first-order logic (FOL) SUMO-based ontologies. We propose a new black-box evaluation framework for SUMO-based ontologies, which exploits the world knowledge encoded in WordNet and its mapping into SUMO. Our proposal consists of both a novel semi-automatic method for the creation of a large set of commonsense problems and a new procedure that enables its automatic evaluation by using automated theorem provers (ATPs). The application of our method enables the creation of a very large benchmark consisting of more than 15 000 problems from a small set of manually built question patterns that exploit the WordNet semantic relations. By means of the resulting benchmark, we successfully evaluate the competency of different translations of SUMO into FOL and the performance of various state-of-the-art FOL ATPs according to several quality criteria. A general analysis of our experimental results demonstrates that the proposed commonsense problems are heterogeneous and non-trivial. Furthermore, a fine-grained analysis of the experimental results obtained for a sample of our benchmark enables the detection of some mapping errors and some discrepancies between the knowledge of WordNet and SUMO. The evaluation benchmark and all the resources that have been used and developed during this work are released in a single package.

We propose methods for solving the satisfiability and validity problems in many-sorted composition-nominative pure predicate logics (without functions and with equality). These logics are algebra-based logics of many-sorted partial predicates constructed in a semantic-syntactic style on the methodological basis that is common with programming; they can be considered as generalizations of traditional many-sorted logics on classes of partial predicates that do not have fixed arity. We show the reduction of the satisfiability problem to the same problem for many-sorted classical first-order pure predicate logic with equality. As validity is dual to satisfiability, the method proposed can be adopted to the validity problem. This enables us to use existent satisfiability and validity checking procedures developed for classical logic also for solving these problems in composition-nominative pure predicate logics with equality.

The elimination distance to some target graph property P is a general graph modification parameter introduced by Bulian and Dawar. We initiate the study of elimination distances to graph properties expressible in first-order logic. We delimit the problem’s fixed-parameter tractability by identifying sufficient and necessary conditions on the structure of prefixes of first-order logic formulas. Our main result is the following meta-theorem: For every graph property P expressible by a first order-logic formula \( \varphi \in \Sigma _3 \) , that is, of the form \( \begin{equation*} \varphi =\exists x_1\exists x_2\cdots \exists x_r\ \ \forall y_{1}\forall y_{2}\cdots \forall y_{s}\ \ \exists z_1\exists z_2\cdots \exists z_t~~ \psi ,\end{equation*} \) where \( \psi \) is a quantifier-free first-order formula, checking whether the elimination distance of a graph to P does not exceed \( k \) , is fixed-parameter tractable parameterized by \( k \) . Properties of graphs expressible by formulas from \( \Sigma _3 \) include being of bounded degree, excluding a forbidden subgraph, or containing a bounded dominating set. We complement this theorem by showing that such a general statement does not hold for formulas with even slightly more expressive prefix structure: There are formulas \( \varphi \in \Pi _3 \) , for which computing elimination distance is \( {\sf W}[2] \) -hard.

This paper suggests a bidirectional relationship between state-space and problem-reduction representations. It presents a formalism based on multiple-input and multiple-output operators which provides a basis for viewing the two types of representations in this manner. A representation of the language recognition problem which is based on the Cocke parsing algorithm is used as an illustration. A method for representing problems in first-order logic in such a way that the inference system employed by a resolution-based theorem prover determines whether the set of clauses is interpreted in the state-space mode or in the problem-reduction mode is presented. The analogous concepts in problem-reduction and theorem proving, and the terminology used to refer to them, are noted. The relationship between problem-reduction, input resolution, and linear resolution is is discussed.

The ability to reason and think in a logical manner forms the basis of learning for most mathematics, computer science, philosophy and logic students. Based on the author's teaching notes at the University of Maryland and aimed at a broad audience, this text covers the fundamental topics in classical logic in an extremely clear, thorough and accurate style that is accessible to all the above. Covering propositional logic, first-order logic, and second-order logic, as well as proof theory, computability theory, and model theory, the text also contains numerous carefully graded exercises and is ideal for a first or refresher course.

We introduce a heuristic for automatically checking the validity of first-order formulas of the form forallalpham existbetan middot Psi(alpham,betan) that are encountered in inductive proofs of hardware correctness. The heuristic introduced in this paper is used to automatically check the validity of k-step induction formulas needed to verify hardware designs. The heuristic works on word-level designs that can have data and address buses of arbitrary widths. Our refinement heuristic relies on the idea of predicate instantiation introduced in (H. Abu-Haimed et al., 2003). The heuristic proves quantified formulas by the use of a validity checker, CVC (A. Stump et al., 2002), and a first-order theorem prover, Otter (W.W. McCune, 1994). Our heuristic can be used as a stand-alone technique to verify word-level designs or as a component in an interactive theorem prover. We show the effectiveness of this heuristic for hardware verification by verifying a number of hardware designs completely automatically. The large size of the quantified formulas encountered in these examples shows the effectiveness of our heuristic as a component of a theorem prover