Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before
I argue that the most interesting goal facing researchers in automated reasoning is being able to solve problems that cannot currently be solved by existing tools and methods. This may appear obvious, and is clearly not an original thought, but focusing on this as a primary goal allows us to examine...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Open Publishing Association
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science |
| Online Access: | http://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.12958v1 |
| _version_ | 1811278604476088320 |
|---|---|
| author | Giles Reger |
| author_facet | Giles Reger |
| author_sort | Giles Reger |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | I argue that the most interesting goal facing researchers in automated reasoning is being able to solve problems that cannot currently be solved by existing tools and methods. This may appear obvious, and is clearly not an original thought, but focusing on this as a primary goal allows us to examine other goals in a new light. Many successful theorem provers employ a portfolio of different methods for solving problems. This changes the landscape on which we perform our research: solving problems that can already be solved may not improve the state of the art and a method that can solve a handful of problems unsolvable by current methods, but generally performs poorly on most problems, can be very useful. We acknowledge that forcing new methods to compete against portfolio solvers can stifle innovation. However, this is only the case when comparisons are made at the level of total problems solved. We propose a movement towards focussing on unique solutions in evaluation and competitions i.e. measuring the potential contribution to a portfolio solver. This state of affairs is particularly prominent in first-order logic, which is undecidable. When reasoning in a decidable logic there can be a focus on optimising a decision procedure and measuring average solving times. But in a setting where solutions are difficult to find, average solving times lose meaning, and whilst improving the efficiency of a technique can move potential solutions within acceptable time limits, in general, complementary strategies may be more successful. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T00:38:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5669b6f2667e4b35b3363489fdf26d73 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-2180 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T00:38:52Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | Open Publishing Association |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-5669b6f2667e4b35b3363489fdf26d732022-12-22T03:10:15ZengOpen Publishing AssociationElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science2075-21802019-12-01311Proc. ARCADE 2019374110.4204/EPTCS.311.6:7Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone BeforeGiles Reger0 University of Manchester I argue that the most interesting goal facing researchers in automated reasoning is being able to solve problems that cannot currently be solved by existing tools and methods. This may appear obvious, and is clearly not an original thought, but focusing on this as a primary goal allows us to examine other goals in a new light. Many successful theorem provers employ a portfolio of different methods for solving problems. This changes the landscape on which we perform our research: solving problems that can already be solved may not improve the state of the art and a method that can solve a handful of problems unsolvable by current methods, but generally performs poorly on most problems, can be very useful. We acknowledge that forcing new methods to compete against portfolio solvers can stifle innovation. However, this is only the case when comparisons are made at the level of total problems solved. We propose a movement towards focussing on unique solutions in evaluation and competitions i.e. measuring the potential contribution to a portfolio solver. This state of affairs is particularly prominent in first-order logic, which is undecidable. When reasoning in a decidable logic there can be a focus on optimising a decision procedure and measuring average solving times. But in a setting where solutions are difficult to find, average solving times lose meaning, and whilst improving the efficiency of a technique can move potential solutions within acceptable time limits, in general, complementary strategies may be more successful.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.12958v1 |
| spellingShingle | Giles Reger Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science |
| title | Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before |
| title_full | Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before |
| title_fullStr | Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before |
| title_full_unstemmed | Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before |
| title_short | Boldly Going Where No Prover Has Gone Before |
| title_sort | boldly going where no prover has gone before |
| url | http://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.12958v1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gilesreger boldlygoingwherenoproverhasgonebefore |