A Breadth-First Strategy for Mating Search

  • Matthew Bishop
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1632)

Abstract

Mating search is a very general method for automating proof search; it specifies that one must find a complete mating, without specifying the way in which this is to be achieved. It is the foundation of TPS, an automated theorem-proving system for simply-typed lambda-calculus, and has proven very effective in discovering proofs of higher-order theorems. However, previous implementations of mating search have all relied on essentially the same mating search method: enumerating the paths through a matrix of literals. This is a depth-first strategy which is both computationally expensive and vulnerable to blind alleys in the search space; in addition, the incremental computation of unifiers which is required is, in the higher-order case, very inefficient. We describe a new breadth-first mating search method, called component search, in which matings are constructed by taking unions from a fixed list of smaller matings, whose unifiers are stored and manipulated as directed graphs. Component search is capable of handling much larger search spaces than were possible with path-enumeration search, and has produced fully automatic proofs of a number of interesting theorems which were previously intractable.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ABI+96.
    Peter B. Andrews, Matthew Bishop, Sunil Issar, Dan Nesmith, Frank Pfenning, and Hongwei Xi. TPS: A theorem proving system for classical type theory. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16:321–353, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. And81.
    Peter B. Andrews. Theorem proving via general matings. Journal of the ACM, 28:193–214, 1981.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. And89.
    Peter B. Andrews. On connections and higher-order logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 5:257–291, 1989.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. BA98.
    Matthew Bishop and Peter B. Andrews. Selectively instantiating definitions. In Claude Kirchner and Hélène Kirchner, editors, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 1421 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 365–380, Lindau, Germany, 1998. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Bar84.
    H. P. Barendregt. The λ-Calculus. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, North-Holland, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. BBE+95.
    W. Bibel, S. Bruning, U. Egly, D. Korn, and T. Rath. Issues in theorem proving based on the connection method. In Peter Baumgartner, Reiner Hähnle, and Joachim Posegga, editors, Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. 4th International Workshop. TABLEAUX’ 95, volume 918 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1–16, Schloß Rheinfels, St. Goar, Germany, May 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Bib82.
    Wolfgang Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. Bis99.
    Matthew Bishop. Mating Search Without Path Enumeration. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. BLM+86.
    Robert Boyer, Ewing Lusk, William McCune, Ross Overbeek, Mark Stickel, and Lawrence Wos. Set theory in first-order logic: Clauses for Gödel’s axioms. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2:287–327, 1986.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brü94.
    S. Brüning. Techniques for Avoiding Redundancy in Theorem Proving Based on the Connection Method. PhD thesis, TH Darmstadt, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. Bry86.
    R.E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chu40.
    Alonzo Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5:56–68, 1940.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. CR36.
    Alonzo Church and J.B. Rosser. Some properties of conversion. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 3:472–482, 1936.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Gol81.
    Warren D. Goldfarb. The undecidability of the second-order unification problem. Theoretical Computer Science, 13:225–230, 1981.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Hue73.
    Gerard P. Huet. The undecidability of unification in third-order logic. Information and Control, 22:257–267, 1973.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Hue75.
    Gerard P. Huet. A unification algorithm for typed λ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 1:27–57, 1975.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Iss90.
    Sunil Issar. Path-focused duplication: A search procedure for general matings. In AAAI-90. Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, pages 221–226. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. Iss91.
    Sunil Issar. Operational Issues in Automated Theorem Proving Using Matings. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991. 147 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Kna27.
    B. Knaster. Une théorème sur les fonctions d’ensembles. Annales Soc. Polonaise Math., 6:133–134, 1927.Google Scholar
  20. LP92.
    Shie-Jue Lee and David A. Plaisted. Eliminating duplication with the hyperlinking strategy. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 9:25–42, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfe87.
    Frank Pfenning. Proof Transformations in Higher-Order Logic. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987. 156 pp.Google Scholar
  22. SG89.
    Wayne Snyder and Jean Gallier. Higher-order unification revisited: Complete sets of transformations. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 8:101–140, 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Szá63.
    Gabor Szász. Introduction to Lattice Theory. Academic Press, New York and London, 1963.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Bishop
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesCarnegie Mellon University PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations