The search efficiency of theorem proving strategies

  • David A. Plaisted
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 814)

Abstract

We analyze the search efficiency of a number of common refutational theorem proving strategies for first-order logic. We show that most of them produce search spaces of exponential size even on simple sets of clauses, or else are not sensitive to the goal. We also discuss clause linking, a new procedure that uses a reduction to propositional calculus, and show that it, together with methods that cache subgoals, have behavior that is more favorable in some respects.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AS92]
    Owen Astrachan and M. Stickel. Caching and lemma use in model elimination theorem provers. In D. Kapur, editor, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Automated Deduction, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [BG90]
    Leo Bachmair and Harold Ganzinger. On restrictions of ordered paramodulation with simplification. In Mark Stickel, editor, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 427–441, New York, 1990. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. [Bib87]
    W. Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, Braunschweig/Weisbaden, 1987. second edition.Google Scholar
  4. [Bun83]
    A. Bundy. The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning. Academic Press, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [CL73]
    C. Chang and R. Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. [CR79]
    S. A. Cook and R. Reckhow. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44(1):36–50, March 1979.Google Scholar
  7. [DP60]
    M. Davis and H. Putnam. A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 7:201–215, 1960.Google Scholar
  8. [Ede92]
    E. Eder. Relative Complexities of First-Order Calculi. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [Hak85]
    A. Haken. The intractability of resolution. Theoretical Computer Science, 39:297–308, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [HR91]
    J. Hsiang and M Rusinowitch. Proving refutational completeness of theorem-proving strategies: the transfinite semantic tree method. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 38(3):559–587, July 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [KBL93]
    H. Kleine Buening and T. Lettman. Search space and average proof length of resolution. Unpublished, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [Kor85]
    R. E. Korf. Depth-first iterative deepening: An optimal admissible tree search. Artificial Intelligence, 27:97–109, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [Let93]
    R. Letz. On the polynomial transparency of resolution. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 123–129, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [Llo87]
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. 2nd edn.Google Scholar
  15. [Lov69]
    D. Loveland. A simplified format for the model elimination procedure. J. ACM, 16:349–363, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. [Lov78]
    D. Loveland. Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis. North-Holland, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. [LP92]
    S.-J. Lee and D. Plaisted. Eliminating duplication with the hyper-linking strategy. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 9(1):25–42, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. [Pla82]
    D. Plaisted. A simplified problem reduction format. Artificial Intelligence, 18:227–261, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. [Pla88]
    D. Plaisted. Non-Horn clause logic programming without contrapositives. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4:287–325, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [Rob65]
    J. Robinson. Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution. Int. J. Comput. Math., 1:227–234, 1965.Google Scholar
  21. [Sla67]
    J.R. Slagle. Automatic theorem proving with renameable and semantic resolution. J. ACM, 14:687–697, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. [ST85]
    M.E. Stickel and W.M. Tyson. An analysis of consecutively bounded depth-first search with applications in automated deduction. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1073–1075, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. [Tam90]
    T. Tammet. The resolution program: able to decide some solvable classes. In International Conference on Computer Logic, 1988, pages 300–312, 1990. Springer Verlag LNCS 417.Google Scholar
  24. [Tam91]
    T. Tammet. Using resolution for deciding solvable classes and building finite models. In Baltic Computer Science, pages 33–64, 1991. Springer Verlag LNCS 502.Google Scholar
  25. [Urq87]
    A. Urquhart. Hard examples for resolution. J. ACM, 34(1):209–219, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. [WOLB84]
    L. Wos, R. Overbeek, E. Lusk, and J. Boyle. Automated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984.Google Scholar
  27. [WRC65]
    L. Wos, G. Robinson, and D. Carson. Efficiency and completeness of the set of support strategy in theorem proving. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 12:536–541, 1965.Google Scholar
  28. [Zam72]
    N.K. Zamov. On a bound for the complexity of terms in the resolution method. Trudy. Mat. Inst. Steklov, 128:5–13, 1972.Google Scholar
  29. [Zam89]
    N.K. Zamov. Maslov's inverse method and decidable classes. Annals of pure and applied logic, 42:165–194, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Plaisted
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill
  2. 2.MPI fuer InformatikSaarbruecken
  3. 3.Fachbereich InformatikUniversitaet KaiserslauternKaiserslautern

Personalised recommendations