Abstract
Complete propositional reasoning is impractical as a tool in artificial intelligence, because it is computationally intractable. Most current approaches to limited propositional reasoning cannot easily be adjusted to use more (or less) time to prove more (fewer) theorems when the task requires it. This difficulty can be solved byparameterizing the reasoner: designing in a ‘power dial’ giving the user fine control over cost and performance. System designers face the significant problem of choosing the best parameter scheme to use. This paper proposes an empirical methodology for comparing parameter schemes and illustrates its use in comparing eight such schemes for a given complete, resolution-based propositional reasoner. From the data, a clear choice emerges as the most preferable of the eight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ChangC.-L. and LeeR. C.,Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York (1973).
deKleerJ., ‘A comparison of ATMS and CSP techniques’, inProceedings of the eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 290–296. Morgan Kaufmann, Palo Alto, CA (1989).
GalilZ., ‘On resolution with clauses of bounded size’,SIAM Computing 6(3), 444–459 (1977).
Goldberg, A., ‘Average case complexity of the satisfiability problem’, inProc. Fourth Workshop on Automated Deduction, pp. 1–6 (1979).
HallR. J., LathropR. H., and KirkR. S., ‘A multiple representation approach to understanding the time behavior of digital circuits’, inProc. Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 799–803. Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, CA (1987).
Haralick, R. M. and Shapiro, L. G., ‘The consistent labelling problem: parts i and ii’,IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. and Machine Intel. PAMI-1(2),PAMI-2(3) (1979, 1980).
LovelandD. W.,Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, Vol. 6, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978).
MackworthA. K., ‘Consistency in networks of relations’,Artificial Intelligence 8, pp 99–118 (1977).
McAllester, D. A.,An Outlook on Truth Maintenance. Memorandom AIM-551. Artificial Intelligence Lab., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1980).
MichalskiR. S. and WinstonP. H., ‘Variable precision logic’,Artificial Intelligence 29, 121–146 (1986).
ReiterR. and deKleerJ., ‘Foundations of assumption-based truth maintenance systems: preliminary report’, inProc. Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA (1987).
RichC. ‘The layered architecture of a system for reasoning about programs’, inProc. Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 540–546. Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, CA (1985).
StickelM. E. ‘AProlog technology theorem prover: implementation by an extendedProlog compiler’,J. Automated Reasoning 4 353–380 (1988).
TisonP., ‘Generalization of consensus theory and application to the minimization of boolean functions’,IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers EC-16(4), 446–456 (1967).
UrquhartA., ‘Hard examples for resolution’,J. ACM 34, 1 209–219 (1987).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hall, R.J. Comparing parameter schemes for propositional reasoning: An empirical study. J Autom Reasoning 8, 367–394 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02341855
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02341855