Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 17–57 | Cite as

Ordered Semantic Hyper Tableaux

  • Adnan Yahya
  • David A. Plaisted


A family of tableau methods, called ordered semantic hyper (OSH) tableau methods for first-order theories with function symbols, is presented. These methods permit semantic information to guide the search for a proof. They also may make use of orderings on literals, clauses, and interpretations to guide the search. In a typical tableau, the branches represent conjunctions of literals, and the tableau represents the disjunction of the branches. An OSH tableau is as usual except that each branch B has an interpretation I0[B] associated with it, where I0 is an interpretation supplied at the beginning and I0[B] is the interpretation most like I0 that satisfies B. Only clauses that I0[B] falsifies may be used to expand the branch B, thus restricting the kinds of tableau that can be constructed. This restriction guarantees the goal sensitivity of these methods if I0 is properly chosen. Certain choices of I0 may produce a purely bottom-up tableau construction, while others may result in goal-oriented evaluation for a given query. The choices of which branch is selected for expansion and which clause is used to expand this branch are examined and their effects on the OSH tableau methods considered. A branch reordering method is also studied, as well as a branch pruning technique called complement modification, that adds additional literals to branches in a soundness-preserving manner. All members of the family of OSH tableaux are shown to be sound, complete, and proof convergent for refutations. Proof convergence means that any allowable sequence of operations will eventually find a proof, if one exists. OSH tableaux are powerful enough to be treated as a generalization of several classes of tableau discussed in the literature, including forward chaining and backward chaining procedures. Therefore, they can be used for efficient query processing.

tableaux semantics automated theorem proving literal ordering 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baumgartner, P.: FDPLL — a first-order Davis—Putnam—Logemann—Loveland procedure, in Proceedings of CADE, LNAI 1831, Springer-Verlag, 2000, pp. 200–219.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner, P.: Hyper tableaux — the next generation, in Proceedings of TABLEAUX'98, LNCS 1397, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 60–76.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner, P., Fröhlich, P., Furbach, U. and Nejdl, W.: Semantically guided theorem proving for diagnosis applications, in Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 97), 1997, pp. 460–465.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumgartner, P., Fröhlich, P., Furbach, U. and Nejdl, W.: Tableaux for diagnosis applications, in Proceedings of the Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX'97), LNAI 1227, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997, pp. 76–90.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner, P. and Furbach, U.: Consolution as a framework for comparing calculi, J. Symbolic Comput. 16(5) (1993), 445–477.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U. and Niemalä, I.: Hyper tableaux, in Proceedings of JELIA'96, LNAI 1126, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billon, J.-P.: The disconnection method — a confluent integration of unification in the analytic framework, in Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Palermo, Italy, LNCS 1071 Springer-Verlag, May 1996, pp. 110–126.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, M. and Sutcliffe, G.: PTTP+GLiDeS: Using models to guide linear deductions, in Proceedings of CADE-17 Workshop: Model Computation — Principles, Algorithms, Applications, June 2000, pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bry, F. and Yahya, A.: Positive unit hyperresolution tableaux and their application to minimal model generation, J. Automated Reasoning 25(1) (2000), 35–82.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chou, T. and Winslett, M.: A model-based belief revision system, J. Automated Reasoning 12 (1994), 157–208.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chu, H. and Plaisted, D.: Semantically guided first order theorem proving using hyperlinking, in Proceedings of CADE-12, LNAI 814, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 192–206.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demolombe, R.: An efficient strategy for non-Horn deductive databases, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 78 (1991), 245–259.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eder, E.: Consolution and its relation with resolution, in Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), Morgan Kaufmann, August 1991, pp. 132–136.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitting, M.: First Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Funk, S.: Using a modified size measure to guide the search in the ordered semantic hyperlinking theorem prover, M.S. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haehnle, R. and Pape, C.: Ordered tableaux: Extensions and applications, in Proceedings of Conference on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX'97), 1997, pp. 173–187.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hasegawa, R., Inoue, K., Ohta, Y. and Koshimura, M.: Nonhorn magic sets to incorporate topdown inference into bottom-up theorem proving, in Proceedings of CADE97, 1997, pp. 176–190.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, C. A.: Top down deduction in indefinite deductive databases, in Journées Bases de Données Avancées, Toulouse, France, 1993, pp. 119–138.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Letz, R.: Using matings for pruning connection tableaux, in Proceedings of CADE-15, LNAI 1421, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 381–396.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Letz, R., Mayr, K. and Goller, C.: Controlled integration of the cut rule into connection tableau calculi, J. Automated Reasoning 13 (1994), 119–138.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Letz, R. and Stenz, G.: DCTP — a disconnection calculus theorem prover-system (Abstract), in Proceedings of IJCAR2001, June 2001, pp. 381–385.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loveland, D. W., Reed, D. and Wilson, D.: SATCHMORE: SATCHMO with relevancy, J. Automated Reasoning 14 (1995), 349–363.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loveland, D. W. and Yahya, A.: SATCHMOREBID: SATCHMO(RE) with BIDirectional relevancy, New Generation Computing, to appear.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manthey, R. and Bry, F.: Satchmo: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog, in Proceedings of CADE88, 1988, pp. 415–434.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nejdl, W. and Fröhlich, P.: Minimal model semantics for diagnosis applications: Techniques and first benchmarks, in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on the Principles of Diagnostics, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Niemelä, I.: A tableau calculus for minimal model reasoning, in P. Miglioli, U. Moscato, D. Mundici and M. Ornaghi (eds), Proceedings of the FifthWorkshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNAI 1071, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 278–294.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plaisted, D. and Zhu, Y.: Ordered semantic hyper-linking, J. Automated Reasoning 25(3) (2000), 167–217.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramsay, A.: Generating relevant models, J. Automated Reasoning 7 (1991), 359–368.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajasekar, A. and Yusuf, H.: Dwam — a WAM model extension for disjunctive logic programming, Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 14 (1995), 275–308.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smullyan, R.: First Order Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1968.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yahya, A.: A goal-driven approach to efficient query processing in disjunctive deductive databases, Technical Report PMS-FB-1996-12, Department of Computer Science, Munich University, July 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Zhu, Y. and Plaisted, D.: FOLPLAN: A semantically guided first-order planner, in 10th International FLAIRS Conference, Daytona Beach, Florida, May 11–14, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adnan Yahya
    • 1
  • David A. Plaisted
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamU.S.A. e-mail
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillU.S.A. e-mail

Personalised recommendations