### Tableau Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. 2. U. Endriss, N. Maudet, F. Sadri, and F. Toni. Protocol Conformance for Logic- based Agents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Arti- cial Intelligence (IJCAI-2003). Morgan Kaufmann, 2003. 3. M. Fitting. First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1996. 4. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Desiderata for Inter-agent Protocols. In Proceed- ings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002), Bologna, Italy, 2002.

2003

Cited by 3

### Tableau Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. 2. U. Endriss, N. Maudet, F. Sadri, and F. Toni. Protocol Conformance for Logic- based Agents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Arti- cial Intelligence (IJCAI-2003). Morgan Kaufmann, 2003. 3. M. Fitting. First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1996. 4. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Desiderata for Inter-agent Protocols. In Proceed- ings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002), Bologna, Italy, 2002.

2003

Cited by 3

### Table 1 gives some quantitative information on the proofs. The first column contains the name of the books. The next three columns show the number of lines, the number of definitions and the number of theorems in each book. These numbers can give an idea of the granularity of our proofs. We also included a fifth column with the number of theorems that needed hints from the user. Together with the number of theorems, this can give an idea of the degree of automation of the proofs. It is clear from the table that the main proof effort was done to prove the properties of the unification algorithm.

"... In PAGE 22: ... Table1 . Quantitative information As usual in a typical ACL2 formalization, most of the hints given are for enabling or disabling rules and for using instances of previous lemmas.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1 gives some quantitative information on the proofs. The first column contains the name of the books. The next three columns show the number of lines, the number of definitions and the number of theorems in each book. These numbers can give an idea of the granularity of our proofs. We also included a fifth column with the number of theorems that needed hints from the user. Together with the number of theorems, this can give an idea of the degree of automation of the proofs. It is clear from the table that the main proof effort was done to prove the properties of the unification algorithm.

"... In PAGE 22: ... Table1 . Quantitative information As usual in a typical ACL2 formalization, most of the hints given are for enabling or disabling rules and for using instances of previous lemmas.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 9: Theoretical Criteria And Automated Reasoning Tools. Criterion Theorem Prover Model Generator

"... In PAGE 9: ...In this paper we outlined a theory building method- ology that is based on the use of standard first-order logic, and of existing automated reasoning tools. The logic provides us with a number of criteria that can be tested for using computational tools, such as con- sistency, soundness, falsifiability, and contingency (see Table9 ). In principle, each criterion can be tested for by both theorem proving and model generation strate- gies, for example, a theorem is also sound if it holds in all models of the premise set, or a theory is consis- tent if the deductive closure of the premise set does not contain a contradiction.... ..."

### Table 9: Theoretical Criteria And Automated Reasoning Tools. Criterion Theorem Prover Model Generator

1998

"... In PAGE 9: ...In this paper we outlined a theory building method- ology that is based on the use of standard rst-order logic, and of existing automated reasoning tools. The logic provides us with a number of criteria that can be tested for using computational tools, such as con- sistency, soundness, falsi ability, and contingency (see Table9 ). In principle, each criterion can be tested for by both theorem proving and model generation strate- gies, for example, a theorem is also sound if it holds in all models of the premise set, or a theory is consis- tent if the deductive closure of the premise set does not contain a contradiction.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 4. Results of theorem proving on testbed systems

1999

"... In PAGE 42: ...4 Theorem Proving Results Overall, 21 strategies were developed to assist in the analysis of ASTRAL specifications. Table4 shows the results of using PVS and the developed strategies to prove the proof obligations of the testbed systems. The results of the theorem prover proofs and earlier proofs by hand are the basis for a systematic analysis methodology described in [Kol 99b] in which tool-supported guidance is given for constructing proof sketches by hand, which are then carried out in a similar fashion within PVS.... ..."

Cited by 3