On the Expressivity and Applicability of Model Representation Formalisms

  • Andreas Teucke
  • Marco Voigt
  • Christoph WeidenbachEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11715)


A number of first-order calculi employ an explicit model representation formalism in support of non-redundant inferences and for detecting satisfiability. Many of these formalisms can represent infinite Herbrand models. The first-order fragment of monadic, shallow, linear, Horn (MSLH) clauses, is such a formalism used in the approximation refinement calculus (AR). Our first result is a finite model property for MSLH clause sets. Therefore, MSLH clause sets cannot represent models of clause sets with inherently infinite models. Through a translation to tree automata, we further show that this limitation also applies to the linear fragments of implicit generalizations, which is the formalism used in the model-evolution calculus (ME), to atoms with disequality constraints, the formalisms used in the non-redundant clause learning calculus (NRCL), and to atoms with membership constraints, a formalism used for example in decision procedures for algebraic data types. Although these formalisms cannot represent models of clause sets with inherently infinite models, through an additional approximation step they can. This is our second main result. For clause sets including the definition of an equivalence relation with the help of an additional, novel approximation, called reflexive relation splitting, the approximation refinement calculus can automatically show satisfiability through the MSLH clause set formalism.



This work was funded by DFG grant 389792660 as part of TRR 248. We thank our reviewers for their valuable comments.


  1. 1.
    Alagi, G., Weidenbach, C.: NRCL – A model building approach to the Bernays-Schönfinkel fragment. In: Lutz, C., Ranise, S. (eds.) FroCoS 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9322, pp. 69–84. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H.: Rewrite-based equational theorem proving with selection and simplification. J. Log. Comput. 4(3), 217–247 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., Tinelli, C.: Lemma learning in the model evolution calculus. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4246, pp. 572–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanchet, B.: Automatic proof of strong secrecy for security protocols. In: 2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 86–100 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonacina, M.P., Furbach, U., Sofronie-Stokkermans, V.: On first-order model-based reasoning. In: Martí-Oliet, N., Ölveczky, P.C., Talcott, C. (eds.) Logic, Rewriting, and Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 9200, pp. 181–204. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonacina, M.P., Plaisted, D.A.: Semantically-guided goal-sensitive reasoning: model representation. J. Autom. Reason. 56(2), 113–141 (2016). Inference System and Completeness in 59(2), JARMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brainerd, W.S.: The minimalization of tree automata. Inf. Control 13, 484–491 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caferra, R., Leitsch, A., Peltier, N.: Automated Model Building. Applied Logic Series, vol. 31. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claessen, K., Soerensson, N.: New techniques that improve mace-style finite model finding. In: Proceedings of the CADE-19 Workshop: Model Computation - Principles, Algorithms, Applications (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Comon, H., Dauchet, M., Gilleron, R., Löding, C., Jacquemard, F., Lugiez, D., Tison, S., Tommasi, M.: Tree automata techniques and applications (2007). Release 12 Oct 2007
  11. 11.
    Comon, H.: Disunification: A survey. In: Computational Logic - Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson, pp. 322–359. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J., Thomas, W.: Mathematical Logic, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1994). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fermüller, C.G., Pichler, R.: Model representation over finite and infinite signatures. J. Log. Comput. 17(3), 453–477 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hernandez, J.C.L., Korovin, K.: Towards an abstraction-refinement framework for reasoning with large theories. In: IWIL@LPAR 2017. EasyChair (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacquemard, F., Meyer, C., Weidenbach, C.: Unification in extensions of shallow equational theories. In: Nipkow, T. (ed.) RTA 1998. LNCS, vol. 1379, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korovin, K.: Inst-Gen – A modular approach to instantiation-based automated reasoning. In: Voronkov, A., Weidenbach, C. (eds.) Programming Logics. LNCS, vol. 7797, pp. 239–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCune, W.: Mace4 reference manual and guide. CoRR, cs.SC/0310055 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peltier, N.: Constructing infinite models represented by tree automata. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 56, 65–85 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piskac, R., de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Deciding effectively propositional logic using DPLL and substitution sets. J. Autom. Reason. 44(4), 401–424 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Post, E.L.: A variant of a recursively unsolvable problem. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 52, 264–268 (1946)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slaney, J.: FINDER: Finite domain enumerator system description. In: Bundy, A. (ed.) CADE 1994. LNCS, vol. 814, pp. 798–801. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure: the FOF and CNF parts, v3.5.0. J. Autom. Reason. 43(4), 337–362 (2009) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suter, P., Dotta, M., Kuncak, V.: Decision procedures for algebraic data types with abstractions. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2010, Madrid, Spain, 17–23 January 2010, pp. 199–210. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teucke, A.: An approximation and refinement approach to first-order automated reasoning. Doctoral thesis, Saarland University (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teucke, A., Voigt, M., Weidenbach, C.: On the expressivity and applicability of model representation formalisms. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1905.03651 [cs.LO] (2019)
  26. 26.
    Teucke, A., Weidenbach, C.: First-order logic theorem proving and model building via approximation and instantiation. In: Lutz, C., Ranise, S. (eds.) FroCoS 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9322, pp. 85–100. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teucke, A., Weidenbach, C.: Ordered resolution with straight dismatching constraints. In: Fontaine, P., Schulz, S., Urban, J. (eds.) 5th Workshop on Practical Aspects of Automated Reasoning (PAAR@IJCAR 2016) co-located with International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR) 2016. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1635, pp. 95–109. (2016).
  28. 28.
    Teucke, A., Weidenbach, C.: Decidability of the monadic shallow linear first-order fragment with straight dismatching constraints. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) CADE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10395, pp. 202–219. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weidenbach, C.: Towards an automatic analysis of security protocols in first-order logic. CADE 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1632, pp. 314–328. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weidenbach, C.: Automated reasoning building blocks. In: Meyer, R., Platzer, A., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) Correct System Design. LNCS, vol. 9360, pp. 172–188. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Teucke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marco Voigt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christoph Weidenbach
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for InformaticsSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Graduate School of Computer ScienceSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations