From math.semantic.web at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 20:55:53 2012 From: math.semantic.web at gmail.com (Christoph LANGE) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:53 +0000 Subject: [Hets-users] CfP: Stage 2 of Enabling Domain Experts to use Formalised Reasoning@AISB 2013 (Exeter, UK, 2-3 Apr 2013); Deadline 14 Jan Message-ID: <50D0CA49.5010609@gmail.com> Do-Form: Enabling Domain Experts to use Formalised Reasoning http://cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/formare/events/aisb2013 CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS Symposium at the annual convention of the AISB (Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour; http://www.aisb.org.uk) University of Exeter, UK 2-5 April 2013 http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/computer-science/research/aisb/ SPECIAL SESSIONS with * Utku ?nver (market design and matching problems) * Peter Cramton (auctions) * Neels Vosloo (finance markets regulation) SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 14 January This symposium is motivated by the long-term VISION of making information systems dependable. In the past even mis-represented units of measurements caused fatal ENGINEERING disasters. In ECONOMICS, the subtlety of issues involved in good auction design may have led to low revenues in auctions of public goods such as the 3G radio spectra. Similarly, banks' value-at-risk (VaR) models ? the leading method of financial risk measurement ? are too large and change too quickly to be thoroughly vetted by hand, the current state of the art; in the London Whale incident of 2012, JP Morgan claimed that its exposures were $67mn under one of its VaR models, and $129 under another one. Verifying a model's properties requires formally specifying them; for VaR models, any work would have to start with this most basic step, as regulators' current desiderata are subjective and ambiguous. We believe that these problems can be addressed by representing the knowledge underlying such models and mechanisms in a formal, explicit, machine-verifiable way. Contemporary computer science offers a wide choice of knowledge representation languages well supported by verification tools. Such tools have been successfully applied, e.g., for verifying software that controls commuter rail or payment systems (cf. the symposium homepage for further background). Still, DOMAIN EXPERTS without a strong computer science background find it challenging to choose the right tools and to use them. This symposium aims at investigating ways to support them. Some problems can be addressed now, others will bring new challenges to computer science. General TOPICS of interest include: * for DOMAIN EXPERTS: what problems in application domains could benefit from better verification and knowledge management facilities? Possible fields include: * Example 1 (economics): auctions, VaR, trading algorithms, market design * Example 2 (engineering): system interoperability, manufacturing processes, product classification * for COMPUTER SCIENTISTS: how to provide the right knowledge management and verification tools to domain experts without a computer science background? * wikis and blogs for informal, semantic, semiformal, and formal mathematical knowledge; * general techniques and tools for online collaborative mathematics; * tools for collaboratively producing, presenting, publishing, and interacting with online mathematics; * automation and computer-human interaction aspects of mathematical wikis; * ontologies and knowledge bases designed to support knowledge management and verification in application domains; * practical experiences, usability aspects, feasibility studies; * evaluation of existing tools and experiments; * requirements, user scenarios and goals. We particularly invite submissions that address the problems or that apply the tools presented in the papers submitted for stage 1 (see "submission" below). THE SYMPOSIUM is designed to bring domain experts and formalisers into close and fruitful contact with each other: domain experts will be able to present their fields and problems to formalisers; formalisers will be exposed to new and challenging problem areas. We will combine talks and hands-on sessions to ensure close interaction among participants from both sides. World-class economists will offer dedicated HANDS-ON SESSIONS on the following topics: * Market design and matching problems (Utku ?nver, Boston College): These include matching students to schools, interns to hospitals, and kidney donors to recipients. See the documentation for the 2012 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for more background information (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2012/). * Auctions (Peter Cramton, University of Maryland): Peter works on auctions for ICANN (the ?knock out? domain name auctions), Ofcom UK (4G spectrum auction), the UK Department of the Environment and Climate Change, and others. * Finance (Neels Vosloo, Financial Services Authority UK): It is currently impossible for regulators to properly inspect either risk management models, or algorithmic trading platforms. To what extent can techniques from mechanised reasoning automate some of the inspection process? SUBMISSIONS We solicit submissions on any of the TOPICS outlined initially but prefer submissions that specifically address topics identified in the earlier submission Stage 1. In Stage 1 we had solicited * from DOMAIN EXPERTS descriptions of "nails": canonical models and problems in their domain that might benefit from better verification and knowledge management facilities. Descriptions should focus on aspects of these models that domain users find particularly problematic, and suspect might be aided by formalisation tools * from COMPUTER SCIENTISTS descriptions of "hammers": formalisation, verification and knowledge management tools, with an emphasis on how they could be applied in a concrete real-world setting, or tailored to such application domains. Commented versions of these submissions are now online at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/formare/events/aisb2013/stage1.php. A tool whose description is submitted to Stage 2 could, e.g., be motivated with a Stage 1 problem, and sketch how the tool could, or will, be applied in this domain. Each submission will be refereed by three PC members on average. Submissions will be judged based on the PC's views of the likelihood of contributing to a better matching of hammers (formalisation and verification tools) to nails (domain problems). At this stage we accept PDF submissions in any layout but count 1200 words as one page for fair comparison. We invite research and position papers, as well as tool and system descriptions, from 3 to 10 pages. Besides PDFs we invite the submission of formalised knowledge representations with human-readable annotations. To submit a paper, please go to the Do-Form EasyChair page (http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=doform2013) and follow the instructions for Stage 2 there. FINAL VERSIONS Final versions should be prepared in LaTeX according to the AISB formatting guidelines linked from the symposium homepage. For the final version, non-PDF submissions should be accompanied by a PDF abstract of 2 to 4 pages. Electronic proceedings (with an ISBN) will be made available to the convention delegates on a memory stick, and on the AISB website. Given a sufficient number of high-quality submissions, we will invite authors to submit revised and extended versions to a SPECIAL ISSUE of a relevant JOURNAL. (E.g., co-chair Manfred Kerber is on the editorial board of Mathematics in Computer Science.) IMPORTANT DATES * Submission (Stage 2): 14 January 2013 * Notification: 11 February 2013 * Final versions due: 4 March 2013 * Symposium: 2-3 April 2013 (most likely) * AISB Convention: 2-5 April 2013 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE 1. Bill Andersen, Highfleet, US 2. Rob Arthan, Lemma 1, Reading, UK 3. Christoph Benzm?ller, Free University of Berlin, Germany 4. Peter Cramton, University of Maryland, US 5. James Davenport, University of Bath, UK 6. Michael Gr?ninger, University of Toronto, Canada 7. Manfred Kerber, University of Birmingham, UK (co-chair) 8. Michael Kohlhase, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany 9. Christoph Lange, University of Birmingham, UK (co-chair) 10. Till Mossakowski, University of Bremen, Germany 11. Colin Rowat, University of Birmingham, UK (co-chair) 12. Todd Schneider, Raytheon, US 13. Richard Steinberg, London School of Economics, UK 14. Geoff Sutcliffe, University of Miami, US 15. Theodore L Turocy, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science, University of East Anglia, UK 16. Makarius Wenzel, University of Paris Sud, France 17. Wolfgang Windsteiger, RISC / JKU Linz, Austria COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/ENQUIRIES to be sent to DoForm2013 at easychair.org From math.semantic.web at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 16:01:37 2012 From: math.semantic.web at gmail.com (Christoph LANGE) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:01:37 +0100 Subject: [Hets-users] Local top sorts and ga_* axioms [Re: Fragen zum ersten Auktions-Beweis mit Hets] In-Reply-To: <50D1CA94.2070105@dfki.de> References: <50D109E7.1020101@gmail.com> <50D1CA94.2070105@dfki.de> Message-ID: <50D479D1.60601@gmail.com> Hi Till, many thanks for your help ? so let me continue this conversation on hets-users. (@hets-users: Sorry that there is some leftover text from our previous, private, German conversation.) The background was that in the formalisation at https://codex.cs.bham.ac.uk/svn/langec/formare/code/auction/casl/Vickrey.casl (access on request, read-only copy at http://cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/formare/code/auction-theory/Vickrey.casl) I had been wondering about some axioms starting with ga_* in the list of "axioms to include" when doing a proof. > Im Subsorten-Graph bekommt man sowohl Vector[NonNegativeReal] und > Vectors[NonNegativeReal] angezeigt. Das ist doch ein Bug in der > Spezifikation, oder? Thanks, this was a bug indeed ? changing it to sorts Vector[PositiveReal] < Vector[NonNegativeReal] at least solved the top sort problem: > Die ga_*-Axiome werden von der Herauskodierung der Partialit?t erzeugt. > Ich w?rde lieber Partialit?t und damit auch diese Axiome ganz vermeiden. Could you explain what partiality means? This notion is new to me. Is it related to the circumstance that certain axioms do not hold generally but only for _part_ of the available sorts? > Das kannst du tun, indem den Subsorten-Graph lokale Top-Sorten hat, was > bedeutet, dass jede Zusammenhangskomponente eine Top-Sorte (=gr??te > Sorte) haben muss. Den Subsortengraph kannst du dir mit Rechtsklick auf > einen Knoten -> Taxonomy graph -> Subsort graph anzeigen lassen. F?r > SingleGoodAuction erreichst du lokale Top-Sorten durch Hinzuf?gen von: > sort Vector[NonNegativeReal] < Vector[Real]; Vector[PositiveReal] < > Vector[Real] Fixing the other bug also solved this problem. After my fix shown above the subsort graph for SingleGoodAuction did have local top sorts. > ?ber "Show theory" siehst du dann, dass die Sublogik mit "Sul" statt > "Sub" anf?ngt. And the theory now is in a logic starting with "Sul". However, the ga_* axioms are still there. > darwin-non-fd (non-finite-domain) bekommt den Beweis auch hin. Ah, thanks! > Die Beweise kannst du dir anzeigen lassen, f?r SPASS sind das > Resolutionsbeweise. Man k?nnte daraus auch verst?ndlichere Beweise > erzeugen, damit haben wir uns aber noch nicht besch?ftigt. Bei Bedarf > kann ich gerne erkl?ren, wie man die SPASS-Beweise liest (aber nur mit > lokalen Top-Sorten, sonst ist mir das zu messy). So I do have local top sorts now, but the ga_* axioms still appear. At the moment SPASS outputs something like this: --------------------------SPASS-START----------------------------- Input Problem: <99 steps> ? Axiom clauses: 88 Conjecture clauses: 11 ? Worked Off Clauses: Usable Clauses: <98 lines> ? Here is a proof with depth 0, length 11 : ? Formulae used in the proof : allocation_unique arg_restriction_allocation_2 arg_restriction_allocated allocation_def ga_non_empty_sort_participant --------------------------SPASS-STOP------------------------------ However, I think that at the moment I need not be able to understand these proofs. As long as you tell me that the following intuition is valid for making further progress: * I will try to prove each theorem individually. * When some provers (preferably more than one) manage to prove it, and * when the list of used axioms looks reasonable then I will believe that the proof succeeded. Does this make sense? Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham http://cs.bham.ac.uk/~langec/, Skype duke4701 ? Enabling Domain Experts to use Formalised Reasoning @ AISB 2013 2?5 April 2013, Exeter, UK. Deadline 14 Jan http://cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/formare/events/aisb2013/ ? Intelligent Computer Mathematics, 7?12 Jul 2013, Bath, UK; Deadline 8 Mar http://cicm-conference.org/2013/ From Till.Mossakowski at dfki.de Sat Dec 22 17:05:58 2012 From: Till.Mossakowski at dfki.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:05:58 +0100 Subject: [Hets-users] Local top sorts and ga_* axioms [Re: Fragen zum ersten Auktions-Beweis mit Hets] In-Reply-To: <50D479D1.60601@gmail.com> References: <50D109E7.1020101@gmail.com> <50D1CA94.2070105@dfki.de> <50D479D1.60601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D5DA66.2020403@dfki.de> Hi Christoph, Am 21.12.2012 16:01, schrieb Christoph LANGE: >> Die ga_*-Axiome werden von der Herauskodierung der Partialit?t erzeugt. >> Ich w?rde lieber Partialit?t und damit auch diese Axiome ganz vermeiden. > > Could you explain what partiality means? This notion is new to me. Is > it related to the circumstance that certain axioms do not hold generally > but only for _part_ of the available sorts? Partiality here means partial functions. In CASL, they appear for every subsort s < s' as partial projections pr : s' ->? s. The comorphism CASL2TopSort avoids these partial projections, provided that the subsort graph has local top sorts. > And the theory now is in a logic starting with "Sul". > > However, the ga_* axioms are still there. > >> darwin-non-fd (non-finite-domain) bekommt den Beweis auch hin. > > Ah, thanks! > >> Die Beweise kannst du dir anzeigen lassen, f?r SPASS sind das >> Resolutionsbeweise. Man k?nnte daraus auch verst?ndlichere Beweise >> erzeugen, damit haben wir uns aber noch nicht besch?ftigt. Bei Bedarf >> kann ich gerne erkl?ren, wie man die SPASS-Beweise liest (aber nur mit >> lokalen Top-Sorten, sonst ist mir das zu messy). > > So I do have local top sorts now, but the ga_* axioms still appear. but not those for partiality, I suppose. Could you tell me which specification you have used? > At the moment SPASS outputs something like this: > > > > --------------------------SPASS-START----------------------------- > Input Problem: > <99 steps> > ? > Axiom clauses: 88 Conjecture clauses: 11 > ? > > Worked Off Clauses: > > Usable Clauses: > <98 lines> > ? > > Here is a proof with depth 0, length 11 : > ? > Formulae used in the proof : allocation_unique > arg_restriction_allocation_2 arg_restriction_allocated allocation_def > ga_non_empty_sort_participant > > --------------------------SPASS-STOP------------------------------ > > However, I think that at the moment I need not be able to understand > these proofs. As long as you tell me that the following intuition is > valid for making further progress: > > * I will try to prove each theorem individually. > * When some provers (preferably more than one) manage to prove it, and > * when the list of used axioms looks reasonable > > then I will believe that the proof succeeded. Does this make sense? Yes. This opens an interesting debate about trust in theorem provers and possible different trust levels... Best, Till -- Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski Cartesium, room 2.51 Phone +49-421-218-64226 DFKI GmbH Bremen Fax +49-421-218-9864226 Cyber-Physical Systems Till.Mossakowski at dfki.de Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, D-28359 Bremen http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/ Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH principal office, *not* the address for mail etc.!!!: Trippstadter Str. 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern management board: Prof. Wolfgang Wahlster (chair), Dr. Walter Olthoff supervisory board: Prof. Hans A. Aukes (chair) Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 From Till.Mossakowski at dfki.de Sat Dec 22 18:23:09 2012 From: Till.Mossakowski at dfki.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:23:09 +0100 Subject: [Hets-users] Local top sorts and ga_* axioms [Re: Fragen zum ersten Auktions-Beweis mit Hets] In-Reply-To: <50D5DA66.2020403@dfki.de> References: <50D109E7.1020101@gmail.com> <50D1CA94.2070105@dfki.de> <50D479D1.60601@gmail.com> <50D5DA66.2020403@dfki.de> Message-ID: <50D5EC7D.2030605@dfki.de> P.S. >> So I do have local top sorts now, but the ga_* axioms still appear. > > but not those for partiality, I suppose. Could you tell me which > specification you have used? I have tried the specification SingleGoodAuction. There are two generated axioms only, stemming from the following datatype definition in Basic/RelationsAndOrders.casl: free type Boolean ::= True | False The axioms state that True is not equal to False: . not True = False %(ga_disjoint_True_False)% and that every value in Boolean must be either True or False: generated type Boolean ::= False | True %(ga_generated_Boolean)% which, when translated via CASL2SoftFOL (actually, I was wrong with CASL2TopSort) as follows: formula (forall([boolean(X)], or(equal(X, x_False), equal(X, x_True))), ga_exhaustive_generated_sort_Boolean). Best, Till -- Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski Cartesium, room 2.51 Phone +49-421-218-64226 DFKI GmbH Bremen Fax +49-421-218-9864226 Cyber-Physical Systems Till.Mossakowski at dfki.de Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, D-28359 Bremen http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/ Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH principal office, *not* the address for mail etc.!!!: Trippstadter Str. 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern management board: Prof. Wolfgang Wahlster (chair), Dr. Walter Olthoff supervisory board: Prof. Hans A. Aukes (chair) Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313