Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Positive Unit Hyperresolution Tableaux and Their Application to Minimal Model Generation

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Minimal Herbrand models of sets of first-order clauses are useful in several areas of computer science, for example, automated theorem proving, program verification, logic programming, databases, and artificial intelligence. In most cases, the conventional model generation algorithms are inappropriate because they generate nonminimal Herbrand models and can be inefficient. This article describes an approach for generating the minimal Herbrand models of sets of first-order clauses. The approach builds upon positive unit hyperresolution (PUHR) tableaux, that are in general smaller than conventional tableaux. PUHR tableaux formalize the approach initially introduced with the theorem prover SATCHMO. Two minimal model generation procedures are described. The first one expands PUHR tableaux depth-first relying on a complement splitting expansion rule and on a form of backtracking involving constraints. A Prolog implementation, named MM-SATCHMO, of this procedure is given, and its performance on benchmark suites is reported. The second minimal model generation procedure performs a breadth-first, constrained expansion of PUHR (complement) tableaux. Both procedures are optimal in the sense that each minimal model is constructed only once, and the construction of nonminimal models is interrupted as soon as possible. They are complete in the following sense: The depth-first minimal model generation procedure computes all minimal Herbrand models of the considered clauses provided these models are all finite. The breadth-first minimal model generation procedure computes all finite minimal Herbrand models of the set of clauses under consideration. The proposed procedures are compared with related work in terms of both principles and performance on benchmark problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdennadher, S. and Schütz, H.: Model generation with existentially quantified variables and constraints, in Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming, LNCS 1298, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 256–272.

  2. Aravindan, C. and Baumgartner, P.: A rational and efficient algorithm for view deletion in databases, in Logic Programming-Proc. Int. Logic Programming Symp., MIT Press, 1997.

  3. Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U. and Niemelä, I.: Hyper tableaux, in Proc. Fourth European Workshop on Logic in Artificial Intelligence, LNCS 1126, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 456–459.

  4. Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U. and Niemelä, I.: A tableau calculus for diagnosis applications, in Proc. Sixth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNCS 1227, Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  5. Beckert, B. and Hähnle, R.: An improved method for adding equality to free variable semantic tableaux, in Proc. Eleventh Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS 607, Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 507–521.

  6. Bry, F.: Intensional updates: Abduction via deduction, in Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1990, pp. 561–575.

  7. Bry, F., Eisinger, N., Schütz, H. and Torge, S.: SIC: An interactive tool for the design of integrity constraints (system description), in Proc. Demo Session, Session of the Sixth Int. Conf. on Extending Database Technology, 1998, pp. 45–46.

  8. Bry, F. and Manthey, R.: Detecting consistency of database rules by adapting theorem proving methods, Technical Report KB-8, ECRC, Munich, 1985.

  9. Bry, F. and Manthey, R.: Checking consistency of database constraints: A logical approach, in Proc. Twelfth Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 1986.

  10. Bry, F. and Manthey, R.: Proving finite satisfiability of deductive databases, in Proc. First Workshop on Computer Science Logic, LNCS 329, Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp. 44–55.

  11. Bry, F. and Torge, S.: A deduction method complete for refutation and finite satisfiability, in Proc. Sixth European Workshop on Logics in AI, Springer LNCS 1489, 1998.

  12. Bry, F. and Yahya, A.: Minimal model generation with positive unit hyper-resolution tableaux, in Proc. Fifth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNCS 1071, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

  13. Caferra, R. and Zabel, N.: Building models by using tableaux extended by equational problems, J. Logic Comput. 3 (1993), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, W. and Warren, D. S.: Computation of stable models and its integration with logical query processing, IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng. 8(5) (1996), 742–757.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Davis, M. and Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory, J. ACM 7(3) (1960), 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Denecker,M. and Schreye, D.: A framework for indeterministic model generation with equality, in Proc. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 1992, pp. 650–657.

  17. Denecker, M. and Schreye, D.: On the duality of abduction and model generation in a framework for model generation with equality, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 122 (1994), 225–262.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J. and Thomas, W.: Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

  19. ECLiPSe-ECRC Common Logic Programming System. User Manual, ECRC, Munich, 1994.

  20. Eisinger, N. and Geisler, T.: Problem solving with model-generation approaches based on puhr tableaux, in Proc. Workshop on Problem-solving Methodologies with Automated Deduction, Workshop at the Fifteenth Int. Conf. on Automated Reasoning, 1998.

  21. Emery, R.: Computing circumscriptive databases, Master's Thesis, University of Maryland, 1992. Cited in [48].

  22. Fagin, R., Ullman, J. D. and Vardi, M. Y.: On the semantics of updates in databases, in Proc. Second ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1983.

  23. Fermüller, C. and Leitsch, A.: Hyperresolution and automated model building, J. Logic Comput. 6(2) (1996), 173–203.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fernández, J. A. and Minker, J.: Bottom-up evaluation of hierarchical disjunctive deductive databases, in Proc. Eighth Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1991, pp. 660–675.

  25. Fitting, M.: First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer-Verlag, 1987, 2nd edn, 1990.

  26. Fujita, H. and Hasegawa, R.: A model generation theorem prover in KL1 using a ramified stack algorithm, in Proc. Eighth Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1991.

  27. Furbach, U. (ed.): Tableaux and connection calculi. Part I, in Automated Deduction-A Basis for Applications, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1998.

  28. Gardenförs, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamic of Epistemic States, MIT Press, 1988.

  29. Geisler, T., Panne, S. and Schütz, H.: Satchmo: The compiling and functional variants, J. Automated Reasoning 18(2) (1997), 227–236.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hähnle, R.: Positive tableaux, Research Report, Computer Science Department, University of Karlsruhe, 1995. Cited in [3].

  31. Hasegawa, R., Fujita, H. and Koshimura, M.: MGTP: A model generation theorem prover-its advanced features and applications, in Proc. Sixth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNCS 1227, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 1–15.

  32. Hasegawa, R., Inoue, K., Ohta, Y. and Koshimura, M.: Magic sets to incorporate top-down inference into bottom-up theorem proving, in Proc. Fourteenth Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS 1249, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 176–190.

  33. Herr, L.: E-SATCHMO: Introduction de l'égalité dans le démonstrateur automatique SATCHMO, Technical Report, ECRC, Munich, 1993. In French.

  34. Hintikka, J.: Model minimization-an alternative to circumscription, J. Automated Reasoning 4 (1988), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hörnig, K.M.: Generating small models of first order axioms, in Proc. Sixth German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, IFB 47, Springer-Verlag, 1981.

  36. Inoue, K., Koshimura, M. and Hasegawa, R.: Embedding negation as failure into a model generation theorem prover, in Proc. Eleventh Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, 1992, pp. 400–415.

  37. Kühn, M.: Rigid hypertableaux, in KI'97: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Proc. of Twenty-first Annual German Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, LNCS 1303, Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  38. Leitsch, A.: The Resolution Calculus, Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  39. Letz, R., Mayr, K. and Goller, C.: Controlled integration of the cut rule into connection tableau calculi, J. Automated Reasoning 13(3) (1994), 297–338.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lloyd, J. W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, 1984, 2nd edn, 1987.

  41. Lobo, J., Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A.: Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.

  42. Lorenz, S.: A tableau prover for domain minimization, J. Automated Reasoning 13 (1994), 375–390.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Loveland, D., Reed, D. and Wilson, D.: SATCHMORE: SATCHMO with RElevancy, J. Automated Reasoning 14 (1995), 325–351.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Manthey, R. and Bry, F.: A hyperresolution-based proof procedure and its implementation in Prolog, in Proc. Eleventh German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, IFB 152, Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp. 456–459.

  45. Manthey, R. and Bry, F.: SATCHMO: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog, in Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS 310, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 415–434.

  46. Marek, V. W. and Truszczy´nski, M.: Nonmonotonic Logic. Context Dependent Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, 1993.

  47. Nerode, A., Ng, R. T. and Subrahmanian, V. S.: Computing circumscriptive databases: I. Theory and algorithms, Inform. Comput. 116 (1995), 58–80. Cited in [48].

    Google Scholar 

  48. Niemelä, I.: A tableau calculus for minimal model reasoning, in Proc. Fifth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNCS 1071, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

  49. Niemelä, I.: Implementing circumscription using a tableau method, in Proc. Twelfth European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Wiley, 1996.

  50. Olivetti, N.: Tableaux and sequent calculus for minimal entailment, J. Automated Reasoning 9 (1992), 99–139.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Paramasivam, M. and Plaisted, D.: Automated deduction techniques for classification in description logic systems, J. Automated Reasoning 20(3) (1998).

  52. Peltier, N.: Simplifying and generalizing formulae in tableaux. Pruning the search space and building models, in Proc. Sixth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Tableaux and Related Methods, Springer LNCS 1227, 1997, pp. 313–327.

  53. Poole, D.: Explanation and prediction: An architecture for default and abductive reasoning, Comput. Intell. 5(2) (1989), 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Poole, D., Goebel, R. and Aleliunas, R.: THEORIST: A logical reasoning system for default and diagnosis, in N. Cercone and G. McCalla (eds.), The Knowledge Frontier: Essays in the Representation of Knowledge, Springer-Verlag, 1987.

  55. Prawitz, D.: A new improved proof procedure, Theoria 26 (1960), 102–139.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Purdom, P. W., Jr.: Solving satisfiability with less searching, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. and Maschine Intelligence, PAMI-6 4 (1984), 510–513.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rajasekar, A. K.: Semantics for disjunctive logic programs, Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Advanced Studies and Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, 1989.

  58. Rajasekar, A. K.: Magic set evaluation in disjunctive databases, Research Report, Computer Science Department, University of Kentucky, 1995.

  59. Rajasekar, A. K. and Minker, J.: A fixpoint semantics for disjunctive logic programs, J. Logic Programming 9(1) (1990), 45–74.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ramsay, A.: Formal Methods in Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 2nd edn, 1989.

  61. Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artif. Intell. 32 (1987), 57–95.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Robinson, J. A.: Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution, Internat. J. Comput. Math. 1 (1965), 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Seipel, D.: DisLog-A disjunctive deductive database prototype, in Proc. Twelfth Workshop on Logic Programming, 1997.

  64. Seipel, D.: DisLog-A system for reasoning in disjunctive deductive databases, in Proc. Int. Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases, 1994.

  65. Slaney, J.: Finder (finite domain enumerator): Notes and guides, Tech. Rep., Australian National University Automated Reasoning Project, Canberra, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Smullyan, R.: First-Order Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1968.

  67. Stickel, M. E.: Automated theorem proving research in the fifth generation computer systems project: model generation theorem provers, Future Generation Computer Systems 9(2) (1993), 143–152.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Suchenek, M. A.: First-order syntactic characterizations of minimal entailment, domainminimal entailment, and herbrand entailment, J. Automated Reasoning 10 (1993), 237–263.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Schütz, H. and Geisler, T.: Efficient model generation through compilation, J. Inform. and Comput., to appear. Short version in Proc. Thirteenth Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS 1104, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 433–447.

  70. Tammet, T.: Using resolution for deciding solvable classes and building finite models, in Proc. Baltic Computer Science Conf., LNCS 502, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 33–64.

  71. Torge, S.: Ñberprüfung der Erfüllbarkeit im Endlichen: Ein Verfahren und seine Anwendung, Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Computer Science, University of Munich, 1998. In German.

  72. Winslett, M.: Reasoning about actions using a possible models approach, in Proc. Seventh Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1988.

  73. Wrightson, G. (ed.): Special issue on automated reasoning with analytic tableaux, Part I, J. Automated Reasoning 13(2) (1994), 173–281.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wrightson, G. (ed.): Special issue on automated reasoning with analytic tableaux, Part II, J. Automated Reasoning 13(3) (1994), 283–421.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Yahya, A.: Model generation in disjunctive normal databases, Tech. Rep. PMS-FB-1996-10, Institute for Computer Science, University of Munich, 1996. http://www.informatik.unimuenchen. de/pms/ publikationen/berichte/PMS-FB-1996-10.ps.gz.

  76. Yahya, A.: A goal-driven approach to efficient query processing in disjunctive databases, Tech. Rep. PMS-FB-1996-12, Institute for Computer Science, University of Munich, 1996. http://www.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/pms/publikationen/berichte/PMS-FB-1996-12.ps.gz.

  77. Yahya, A.: Generalized query answering in disjunctive deductive databases: Procedural and nonmonotonic aspects, in Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LNCS 1265, Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  78. Yahya, A., Fernandez, J. A. and Minker, J.: Ordered model trees: A normal form for disjunctive deductive databases, J. Automated Reasoning 13(1) (1994), 117–144.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zhang, J. and Zhang, H.: SEM: A system for enumerating models, in Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informatik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oettingenstraße 67, D–80538, München, Germany

    François Bry

  2. Electrical Engineering Department, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine

    Adnan Yahya

Authors
  1. François Bry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adnan Yahya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bry, F., Yahya, A. Positive Unit Hyperresolution Tableaux and Their Application to Minimal Model Generation. Journal of Automated Reasoning 25, 35–82 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006291616338

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006291616338

Search

Navigation