Thanks for the pointer. I was actually just looking at ACL the other day - I have a friend here at Google who is investigating integrating it with plop as a 20% project. I'm very excited that your work combines theorem-proving with learning, kudos! Do you do anything probabilistic to decide which generalizations to try?
It is more just a set of techniques for generalizing theorems. At this point in time I would say there are a few roadblocks to doing some kind of data-driven probabilistic search for inductive proofs (like ACL2 does). The first is that there just aren't that many generalization techniques already implemented to choose from. The second is that most provers don't even have the basic backtracking mechanisms built in to support that kind of behavior. Although this may seem surprising, the search space for a typical theorem is so huge (technically infinite, but practically speaking just too complex to bother with) that usually if you don't find a proof right away with a high-confidence technique, then you are probably just going to go off into the weeds.
Now that more processing power than ever is available, I'm sure this will gradually change. But a lot of theorem proving technology is very old (dates to the 70s) so it may take some time.
The main technique I came up with looks at a particular finite case of a conjecture and generates a proof for that case using simple rewriting. You then look for patterns in that proof and use them to create a generalization. As a simple example, imagine your trying to prove a theorem about lists. First, I consider the case where a list is only 4 elements. Since this is a finite case, I can prove this easily with rewriting. Now I look at that proof and notice that rule X was applied 4 times. If I do the same thing when the list has 5 elements, that rule is applied 5 times. So in the general case, apply the rule n times.
One novel thing about that I came across in this work is something I called "Hybrid proof terms". I found that it is very difficult to find patterns in sequences of terms (the typical way of representing a rewrite based proof). So I used this representation that factors out the things that do not change from one line of the proof to the next.
Feel free to email me if you would like to discuss any more details. I'm not really working on this project anymore but I still find it a fascinating area of study.
Also, for your friend who is thinking about working with ACL2, he should know that the acl2-help mailing list is quite friendly and helpful.
