Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Upside-down meta-interpretation of the model elimination theorem-proving procedure for deduction and abduction

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

Abstract

Typical bottom-up, forward-chaining reasoning systems such as hyperresolution lack goaldirectedness, while typical top-down, backward-chaining reasoning systems like Prolog or model elimination repeatedly solve the same goals. Reasoning systems that are goal-directed and avoid repeatedly solving the same goals can be constructed by formulating the top-down methods meta-theoretically for execution by a bottom-up reasoning system (hence, we use the term upside-down meta-interpretation). This formulation also facilitates the use of flexible search strategies, such as merit-ordered search, that are common to bottom-up reasoning systems. The model elimination theorem-proving procedure, its extension by an assumption rule for abduction, and its restriction to Horn clauses are adapted here for such upside-down meta-interpretation. This work can be regarded as an extension of the magic-sets or Alexander method for query evaluation in deductive databases to both non-Horn clauses and abductive reasoning.

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. Astrachan, O. L., ‘Investigations in model elimination based theorem proving’, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Astrachan, O. L. and Stickel, M. E., ‘Caching and lemmaizing in model elimination theorem provers’,Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Sarasota Springs, N.Y. (June 1992).

  3. Balbin, I., Port, G. S. and Ramamohanarao, K., ‘Magic set computation for stratified databases’,Technical Report 87/11, Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bancilhon, F., Maier, D., Sagiv, Y. and Ullman, J., ‘Magic sets and other strange ways to implement logic programs’,Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 53–56 (1986).

  5. Brand, D., ‘Proving theorems with the modification method’,SIAM J. Computing 4, 412–430 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bry, F., ‘Query evaluation in recursive databases: Bottom-up and top-down reconciled’,Data & Knowledge Engineering 5, 289–312 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Charniak, E. and Husain, S., ‘A new admissable heuristic for minimal-cost proofs’,Proceedings of the AAAI-91 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Anaheim, California (July 1991).

  8. Charniak, E. and Goldman, R., ‘A logic for semantic interpretation’,Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Buffalo, New York, pp. 87–94 (June 1988).

  9. Cox, P. T. and Pietrzykowski, T., ‘Causes for events: their computation and applications’,Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England, pp. 608–621 (July 1986).

  10. deKleer, J., ‘An assumption-based TMS’,Artificial Intelligence 28, 127–162 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  11. deKleer, J., ‘Extending the ATMS’,Artificial Intelligence 28, 163–196 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Demolombe, R., ‘An efficient strategy for non-Horn deductive databases’,Theoretical Computer Science 78, 245–259 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dietrich, S. W., ‘Extension tables: Memo relations in logic programming’,Proceedings of the 1987 Symposium on Logic Programming, San Francisco, California, pp. 264–272 (August 1987).

  14. Elkan, C., ‘Conspiracy numbers and caching for searching and/or trees and theorem proving’,Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, Michigan, pp. 341–346 (August 1989).

  15. Fernández, J. A. and Minker, J., ‘Bottom-up evaluation of hierarchical disjunctive deductive databases’,Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming, Paris, France, pp. 660–675 (1991).

  16. Finger, J. J., ‘Exploiting constraints in design synthesis’, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California (February 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hasegawa, R. and Fujita, M., ‘Parallel theorem provers and their applications’,Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems 1992, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 132–154 (June 1992).

  18. Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M., Appelt, D. and Martin, P., ‘Interpretation as abduction’,Technical Note 499, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International (December 1990). Revised version to appear inArtificial Intelligence.

  19. Inoue, K., ‘Linear resolution for consequence finding’,Artificial Intelligence 56, 301–353 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kemp, D. B., Stuckey, P. J. and Srivastava, D., ‘Magic sets and bottom-up evaluation of well-founded models’,Proceedings of the 1991 International Symposium on Logic Programming, San Diego, California, pp. 337–354 (1991).

  21. Kowalski, R. A., ‘Problems and promises of computational logic’,Proceedings of the First Symposium on Computational Logic, pp. 1–36 (1990).

  22. Kumar, V. and Lin, Y.-J., ‘An intelligent backtracking scheme for Prolog’,Proceedings of the 1987 Symposium on Logic Programming, San Francisco, California, pp. 406–414 (August–September 1987).

  23. Loveland, D. W., ‘A simplified format for the model elimination procedure’,J. ACM 16, 349–363 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Loveland, D. W.,Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Manthey, R. and Bry, F., ‘Satchmo: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog’,Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Argonne, Illinois, pp. 415–434 (May 1988).

  26. McCune, W., ‘Otter 2.0 Users' Guide’,Technical Report ANL-90/9, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (March 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Neiman, V. S., ‘Refutation search for Horn sets by a subgoal-extraction method’,J. Logic Programming 9, 267–284 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ng, N. T. and Mooney, R. J., ‘An efficient first-order abduction system based on the ATMS’,Proceedings of the AAAI-91 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Anaheim, California (July 1991).

  29. Nie, X. and Plaisted, D. A., ‘A complete semantic back chaining proof system’,Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Kaiserslautern, Germany, pp. 16–27 (July 1990).

  30. Norvig, P., ‘Inference in text understanding’,Proceedings of the AAAI-87 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington (July 1987).

  31. Peng, Y. and Reggia, J. A., ‘A probabilistic causal model for diagnostic problem solving — Part I: Integrating symbolic causal inference with numeric probabilistic inference’,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-17,2, 146–162 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Peng, Y. and Reggia, J. A., ‘A probabilistic causal model for diagnostic problem solving — Part II: Diagnostic strategy’,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-17,3, 395–406 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pierce, C. S., ‘Abduction and induction’, in Buchler, J. (ed.),Philosophical Writings of Charles Sanders Pierce, Dover Books, New York, pp. 150–156 (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Plaisted, D. A., ‘Non-Horn clause logic programming without contrapositive’,J. Automated Reasoning 4(3), 287–325 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Plaisted, D. A., ‘A sequent-style model elimination strategy and a positive refinement’,J. Automated Reasoning 6(4), 389–402 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Plaisted, D. A. and Greenbaum, S., ‘Problem representations for chaining and equality in resolution theorem proving’,Proceedings of the First Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, Denver, Colorado, pp. 417–423 (December 1984).

  37. Poole, D., ‘Explanation and prediction: An architecture for default and abductive reasoning’,Computational Intelligence 5, 97–110 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pople, H. E., Jr, ‘On the mechanization of abductive logic’,Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, California, pp. 147–152 (August 1973).

  39. Przymusinski, T. C., ‘An algorithm to compute circumscription’,Artificial Intelligence 38(1), 49–73 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ramsey, A., ‘Generating relevant models’,J. Automated Reasoning 7(3), 359–368 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Robinson, J. A., ‘Automated deduction with hyper-resolution’,Int. J. Computer Mathematics 1, 227–234 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rohmer, J., Lescoeur, R. and Kerisit, J. M., ‘The Alexander method — a technique for the processing of recursive axioms in deductive databases’,New Generation Computing 4, 273–285 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Seki, H., ‘On the power of Alexander templates’,Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGACT-SIGMODSIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 150–159 (March 1989).

  44. Shostak, R. E., ‘Refutation graphs’,Artificial Intelligence 7(1), 51–64 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Siegel, P.,Représentation et Utilisation de la Connaissance en Calcul Propositionnel, Thèse d'Etat, Université de Aix-Marseille, II, Marseille, France (1987).

  46. Stickel, M. E., ‘A Prolog technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended Prolog compiler’,J. Automated Reasoning 4(4), 353–380 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stickel, M. E., ‘A Prolog-like inference system for computing minimum-cost abductive explanations in natural-language interpretation’,Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 4, 89–106 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tamaki, H. and Sato, T., ‘OLD resolution with tabulation’,Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic Programming, London, England, pp. 84–98 (1986).

  49. Ullman, J. D.,Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Computer Science Press, Rockville, Maryland (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wilson, D. S. and Loveland, D. W., ‘Incorporating relevancy testing inSatchmo’,Technical Report CS-1989-24, Department of Computer Science Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (November 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wos, L., Overbeek, R., Lusk, E. and Boyle, J.,Automated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York (1992).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Melo Park, California, U.S.A.

    Mark E. Stickel

  2. Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Mark E. Stickel

Authors
  1. Mark E. Stickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant CCT-8922330 and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under Office of Naval Research Contract N00014-90-C-0220. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the National Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or the United States Government.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stickel, M.E. Upside-down meta-interpretation of the model elimination theorem-proving procedure for deduction and abduction. J Autom Reasoning 13, 189–210 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881955

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881955

Key words

Search

Navigation