Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 325–351 | Cite as


  • Donald W. Loveland
  • David W. Reed
  • Debra S. Wilson


We introduce a relevancy detection algorithm to be used in conjunction with the SATCHMO prover. The version of SATCHMO considered here is essentially a bidirectional prover, utilizing Prolog (back chaining) on Horn clauses and forward chaining on non-Horn clauses. Our extension, SATCHMORE (SATCHMO with RElevancy), addresses the major weakness of SATCHMO: the uncontrolled use of forward chaining. By marking potentially relevant clause head literals, and then requiring that all the head literals be marked relevant (be “totally relevant”) before a clause is used for forward chaining, SATCHMORE is able to guide the use of these rules. Furthermore, the relevancy testing is performed without extending the proof search beyond what is done in SATCHMO. A simple implementation of the extended SATCHMO can be written in Prolog. We describe our relevancy testing approach, present the implementation, prove soundness and completeness, and provide examples that demonstrate the power of relevancy testing.

Key words

SATCHMO relevancy detection Prolog theorem proving 

AMS Subject Classification



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bancilhon, F., Maier, D., Sagiv, Y., and Ullman, J.: Magic sets and other strange ways to implement logic programs, inProc. 5th ACM Sympos. Principles of Database Systems, 1986, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  2. Beeri, C. and Ramakrishnan, R.: On the power of magic, inProc. 6th ACM Sympos. Principles of Database Systems, 1987, pp. 269–283.Google Scholar
  3. Bry, F.: Query evaluation in recursive databases: Bottom-up and top-down reconciled,Data and Knowledge Engineering 5 (1990), 289–312.Google Scholar
  4. Chang, C. L. and Lee, K. C. T.:Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. Demolombe, R.: An efficient strategy for non-Horn deductive databases,Theoretical Computer Science 78 (1991), 245–259.Google Scholar
  6. Fujita, H. and Hasegawa, R.: A model generation theorem prover in KL1 using a ramified-stack algorithm, in K. Furukawa (ed.),Logic Programming: Proc. 8th Internat. Conf., MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. Fujita, M., Slaney, J. K., and Hasegawa, R.: New results in mathematics by a parallel theorem prover on a parallel inference machine, Technical Report ICOT-TR-1221, ICOT, Tokyo, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. Hasegawa, R., Ohta, Y., and Inoue, K.: Non-Horn magic sets and their relation to relevancy testing. Technical Report ICOT-TR-834, ICOT, Tokyo, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. Lloyd, J. W.:Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. Lobo, J., Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A.:Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. Loveland, D. W.:Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. Manthey, R. and Bry, F.: SATCHMO: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog, inProc. of the Ninth Int'l Conf. on Automated Deduction, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A.: A fixpoint semantics for disjunctive logic programs,J. Logic Programming 9(1) (1990), 45–74.Google Scholar
  14. Ramsay, A.: Generating relevant models,J. Automated Reasoning 7 (1991), 359–368.Google Scholar
  15. Reed, D. W., Loveland, D. W., and Smith, B. T.: A near-Horn approach to disjunctive logic programming, inProc. 2nd Workshop on Extensions of Logic Programming (ELP'91), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 596, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992, pp. 345–369.Google Scholar
  16. Seki, H.: On the power of Alexander templates, inProc. 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. Stickel, M. E.: Upside-down meta-interpretation of the model elimination theorem-proving procedure for deduction and abduction,J. Automated Reasoning (in press).Google Scholar
  18. Stickel, M. E.: Schubert's steamroller problem: Formulations and solutions,J. Automated Reasoning 2 (1986), 89–101.Google Scholar
  19. Wilson, D. S. and Loveland, D. W.: Incorporating relevancy testing in SATCHMO. Technical Report CS-1989-24, Duke University, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald W. Loveland
    • 1
  • David W. Reed
    • 1
  • Debra S. Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceDuke UniversityDurham

Personalised recommendations