Learning to Reason Theorem proving at first order via reinforcement learning

# Learning to Reason Theorem proving at first order via reinforcement learning

## 1 Introduction

Automated theorem proving has long been a key task of artificial intelligence. Proofs form the bedrock of rigorous scientific inquiry. Many tools for both partially and fully automating their derivations have been developed over the last half a century. Some examples of state-of-the-art provers are E (Schulz, 2013), VAMPIRE (Kovács & Voronkov, 2013), and Prover9 (McCune, 2005-2010). Newer theorem provers, such as E, use superposition calculus in place of more traditional resolution and tableau based methods. There have also been a number of past attempts to apply machine learning methods to guiding proof search. Suttner & Ertel proposed a multilayer-perceptron based method using hand-engineered features as far back as 1990; Urban et al (2011) apply machine learning to tableau calculus; and Loos et al (2017) recently proposed a method for guiding the E theorem prover using deep nerual networks. All of this prior work, however, has one common limitation: they all rely on the axioms of classical first-order logic.

Very little attention has been paid to automated theorem proving for non-classical logics. One of the only recent examples is McLaughlin & Pfenning (2008) who applied the polarized inverse method to intuitionistic propositional logic. The literature is otherwise mostly silent. This is truly unfortunate, as there are many reasons to desire non-classical proofs over classical. Constructive/intuitionistic proofs should be of particular interest to computer scientists thanks to the well-known Curry-Howard correspondence (Howard, 1980) which tells us that all terminating programs correspond to a proof in intuitionistic logic and vice versa.

You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
• Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
• Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
• Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters