Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Alan Smaill

dblp:26/6224 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
29ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 18Theory of computation · 12Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Audio and music processing · 100%
Theoretical computer science
3 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 94% Logic in computer science · 6%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program synthesis and code generation · 100%
Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Audio and music processing › music technology
musical interaction
0.112011
Towards a model of musical interaction and communication · Artif. Intell. 2011
Program synthesis and code generation › inductive program synthesis
recursive program synthesis
0.011997
Automatic Synthesis of Recursive Programs: The Proof-Planning Paradigm · ASE 1997
Automated reasoning and model checking › theorem proving
proof planning
0.011997
Automatic Synthesis of Recursive Programs: The Proof-Planning Paradigm · ASE 1997
Automated reasoning and model checking
inductive proof
0.011993
Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs · Artif. Intell. 1993
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
automated reasoning
0.011993
Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs · Artif. Intell. 1993

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

proof planning · 0.0meta-variables · 0.0rippling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 ABC Repair System for Datalog-like Theories
Xue Li 0018, Alan Bundy, Alan Smaill
KEOD3
2015 The role of blending in mathematical invention
Félix Bou, Marco Schorlemmer, Joseph Corneli, Danny Gómez-Ramírez, Ewen Maclean, Alan Smaill, Alison Pease
ICCC6
2014 COINVENT: Towards a Computational Concept Invention Theory
Marco Schorlemmer, Alan Smaill, Kai-Uwe Kühnberger, Oliver Kutz, Simon Colton, Emilios Cambouropoulos, Alison Pease
ICCC2
2011 Towards a model of musical interaction and communication
David Murray-Rust, Alan Smaill
Artif. Intell.2
2011 The Use of Embeddings to Provide a Clean Separation of Term and Annotation for Higher Order Rippling
Louise A. Dennis, Ian Green, Alan Smaill
J. Autom. Reason.3
2010 Some Aspects of Analogical Reasoning in Mathematical Creativity
Alison Pease, Markus Guhe, Alan Smaill
ICCC3
2010 Automation for Dependently Typed Functional Programming
abstract
Writing dependently typed functional programs that capture non-trivial program properties is difficult in current systems due to lack of proof automation. We identify proof patterns that occur when programming with dependent types and detail how automating such patterns allow us to work more comfortably with types that capture, for example, membership, ordering and non-linear arithmetic properties. We describe the role of the rippling heuristic, both for inductive and non-inductive proofs, and generalisation in providing such automation. We then discuss an implementation of our ideas in Coq with practical examples of dependently typed programs, that capture useful program properties, which can be verified automatically. We demonstrate that our proof automation is generic in that it can provide support for working with theorems involving user-defined functions and inductive data types.
Sean Wilson, Jacques D. Fleuriot, Alan Smaill
Fundam. Informaticae3
2007 A Fuzzy Action Selection Method for Virtual Agent Navigation in Unknown Virtual Environments
abstract
This paper presents an action selection method using fuzzy logic. The objective is to solve behaviour conflict in behaviour-based architectures for virtual agent navigation in unknown virtual environments. Two main problems have been identified: how to decide which behaviour should be activated at each instant; and how to combine the results from different behaviours into one action. The method uses fuzzy α-levels to compute behaviour weight for each behaviour and the final action is selected using the Huwicz criterion. The results clearly demonstrate the mapping of inputs to output with a near-optimum path in every navigation task.
Jafreezal Jaafar, Eric McKenzie, Alan Smaill
FUZZ-IEEE3
2006 MAMA: An Architecture for Interactive Musical Agents
David Murray-Rust, Alan Smaill, Michael Edwards
ECAI2
2005 Proof Planning for First-Order Temporal Logic
Claudio Castellini, Alan Smaill
CADE2
2005 Deductive synthesis of workflows for e-Science
abstract
In this paper we show that the automated reasoning technique of deductive synthesis can be applied to address the problem of machine-assisted composition of e-Science workflows according to users' specifications. We encode formal specifications of e-Science data, services and workflows, constructed from their descriptions, in the generic theorem prover Isabelle. Workflows meeting this specification are then synthesised as a side-effect of proving that these specifications can be met.
Alan Bundy, Alan Smaill, Lucas Dixon
CCGRID3
2002 Proof Planning for Feature Interactions: A Preliminary Report
Claudio Castellini, Alan Smaill
LPAR2
2000 Local Search on Random 2+p-SAT
Josh Singer, Ian P. Gent, Alan Smaill
ECAI3
2000 Backbone Fragility and the Local Search Cost Peak
abstract
The local search algorithm WSat is one of the most successful algorithms for solving the satisfiability (SAT) problem. It is notably effective at solving hard Random 3-SAT instances near the so-called `satisfiability threshold', but still shows a peak in search cost near the threshold and large variations in cost over different instances. We make a number of significant contributions to the analysis of WSat on high-cost random instances, using the recently-introduced concept of the backbone of a SAT instance. The backbone is the set of literals which are entailed by an instance. We find that the number of solutions predicts the cost well for small-backbone instances but is much less relevant for the large-backbone instances which appear near the threshold and dominate in the overconstrained region. We show a very strong correlation between search cost and the Hamming distance to the nearest solution early in WSat's search. This pattern leads us to introduce a measure of the backbone fragility of an instance, which indicates how persistent the backbone is as clauses are removed. We propose that high-cost random instances for local search are those with very large backbones which are also backbone-fragile. We suggest that the decay in cost beyond the satisfiability threshold is due to increasing backbone robustness (the opposite of backbone fragility). Our hypothesis makes three correct predictions. First, that the backbone robustness of an instance is negatively correlated with the local search cost when other factors are controlled for. Second, that backbone-minimal instances (which are 3-SAT instances altered so as to be more backbone-fragile) are unusually hard for WSat. Third, that the clauses most often unsatisfied during search are those whose deletion has the most effect on the backbone. In understanding the pathologies of local search methods, we hope to contribute to the development of new and better techniques.
Josh Singer, Ian P. Gent, Alan Smaill
J. Artif. Intell. Res.3
1999 Automatic Synthesis of Recursive Programs: The Proof-Planning Paradigm
Alessandro Armando, Alan Smaill, Ian Green
Autom. Softw. Eng.2
1999 Recursive Program Optimization Through Inductive Synthesis Proof Transformation
Peter Madden, Alan Bundy, Alan Smaill
J. Autom. Reason.3
1998 System Description: Proof Planning in Higher-Order Logic with Lambda-Clam
Julian Richardson, Alan Smaill, Ian Green
CADE2
1997 Automatic Synthesis of Recursive Programs: The Proof-Planning Paradigm
abstract
We describe a proof plan that characterises a family of proofs corresponding to the synthesis of recursive functional programs. This plan provides a significant degree of automation in the construction of recursive programs from specifications, together with correctness proofs. This plan makes use of meta-variables to allow successive refinement of the identity of unknowns, and so allows the program and the proof to be developed hand in hand. We illustrate the plan with parts of a substantial example-the synthesis of a unification algorithm.
Alessandro Armando, Alan Smaill, Ian Green
ASE2
1996 Experiments in Automating Hardware Verification Using Inductive Proof Planning
Francisco J. Cantú Ortiz, Alan Bundy, Alan Smaill, David A. Basin
FMCAD3
1996 NatureTime: Temporal Granularity in Simulation of Ecosystems
Edjard de Souza Mota, David Stuart Robertson 0001, Alan Smaill
J. Symb. Comput.3
1994 Mollusc: A General Proof-Development Shell for Sequent-Based Logics
Bradley Richards 0002, Ina Kraan, Alan Smaill, Geraint A. Wiggins
CADE3
1993 Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs
Alan Bundy, Andrew Stevens 0001, Frank van Harmelen, Andrew Ireland, Alan Smaill
Artif. Intell.5
1992 Using Middle-Out Reasoning to Control the Synthesis of Tail-Recursive Programs
Jane Hesketh, Alan Bundy, Alan Smaill
CADE3
1992 On the Use of the Constructive Omega-Rule within Automated Deduction
Siani Baker, Andrew Ireland, Alan Smaill
LPAR3
1991 An Algebraic Semantics of Prolog Program Termination
Brian J. Ross, Alan Smaill
ICLP2
1991 Experiments with Proof Plans for Induction
Alan Bundy, Frank van Harmelen, Jane Hesketh, Alan Smaill
J. Autom. Reason.4
1990 The Oyster-Clam System
Alan Bundy, Frank van Harmelen, Christian Horn, Alan Smaill
CADE4
1990 Extensions to the Rippling-Out Tactic for Guiding Inductive Proofs
Alan Bundy, Frank van Harmelen, Alan Smaill, Andrew Ireland
CADE3
1989 A Rational Reconstruction and Extension of Recursion Analysis
Alan Bundy, Frank van Harmelen, Jane Hesketh, Alan Smaill, Andrew Stevens 0001
IJCAI4