On semantic resolution with lemmaizing and contraction

  • Maria Paola Bonacina
  • Jieh Hsiang
Automated Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1114)

Abstract

Reducing redundancy in search has been a major concern for automated deduction. Subgoal-reduction strategies prevent redundant search by using lemmaizing and caching, whereas contraction-based strategies prevent redundant search by using contraction rules, such as subsumption. In this work we show that lemmaizing and contraction can coexist in the framework of semantic resolution. On the lemmaizing side, we define two meta-level inference rules for lemmaizing in semantic resolution, one for unit and one for non-unit lemmas, and we prove their soundness. Rules for lemmaizing are meta-rules because they use global knowledge about the derivation, e.g. ancestry relations, in order to derive lemmas. On the contraction side, we give contraction rules for semantic strategies, and we define a purity deletion rule for first-order clauses that preserves completeness. While lemmaizing generalizes success caching of model elimination, purity deletion echoes failure caching. Thus, our approach integrates features of backward and forward reasoning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Anantharaman and J. Hsiang, Automated Proofs of the Moufang Identities in Alternative Rings, Journal of Automated Reasoning, Vol. 6, No. 1, 76–109, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. L. Astrachan and D. W. Loveland, METEORs: High performance theorem provers using model elimination, in R.S. Boyer (ed.), Automated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. L. Astrachan and M. E. Stickel, Caching and Lemmaizing in Model Elimination Theorem Provers, in D. Kapur (ed.), Proc. of the 11th CADE, Springer Verlag, LNAI 607, 224–238, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger, On Restrictions of Ordered Paramodulation with Simplification, in M. E. Stickel (ed.), Proc. of the 10th CADE, Springer Verlag, LNAI 449, 427–441, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. P. Bonacina and J. Hsiang, Towards a foundation of completion procedures as semidecision procedures, Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 146, 199–242, July 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. P. Bonacina and J. Hsiang, On semantic resolution with lemmaizing and contraction, Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, University of Iowa, Sept. 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. L. Chang and R. C. Lee, Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Davis and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 7, 201–215, 1960.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Fleisig, D. Loveland, A. Smiley and D. Yarmash, An Implementation of the Model Elimination Proof Procedure, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 21, 124–139, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Hsiang and M. Rusinowitch, Proving Refutational Completeness of Theorem Proving Strategies: the Transfinite Semantic Tree Method, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 38, No. 3, 559–587, July 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Kapur and H. Zhang, RRL: a Rewrite Rule Laboratory, in E. Lusk, R. Overbeek (eds.), Proc. of the 9th CADE, Springer Verlag, LNCS 310, 768–770, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. W. Loveland, A Simplified Format for the Model Elimination Procedure, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 16, No. 3, 349–363, July 1969.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. W. McCune, Otter 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide, Tech. Rep. ANL-94/6, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne Nat. Lab., Jan. 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. A. Plaisted, The Search Efficiency of Theorem Proving Strategies, in A.Bundy (ed.), Proc. of the 12th CADE, Springer Verlag, LNAI 814, 57–71, 1994, and Tech. Rep. MPI-I-94-233, Max Planck Institut für Informatik.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. A. Plaisted, Non-Horn Clause Logic Programming Without Contrapositives, Journal of Automated Reasoning, Vol. 4, No. 3, 287–325, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Rusinowitch, Theorem-proving with Resolution and Superposition, Journal of Symbolic Computation, Vol. 11, No. 1 & 2, 21–50, Jan./Feb. 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. E. Stickel, A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler, Journal of Automated Reasoning, Vol. 4, 353–380, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. E. Stickel, PTTP and Linked Inference, in R. S. Boyer (ed.), Automated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. S. Warren, Memoing for logic programs, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 3, 94–111, Mar. 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Paola Bonacina
    • 1
  • Jieh Hsiang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.National Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations