EUROCAL 1985: EUROCAL '85 pp 50-63

# Path resolution and semantic graphs

• Neil V. Murray
• Erik Rosenthal
Automated Theorem Proving
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 204)

## Abstract

We introduce a new rule of inference, path resolution, which operates on a graphical representation of quantifier-free predicate calculus formulas. Our goal in the design of path resolution is to retain some of the advantages of both Prawitz analysis and resolution methods, and yet to avoid to some extent their disadvantages.

The main advantage of Prawitz analysis is that, except for variants of original formulas, no new formulas are inferred which rapidly expand the search space. However, except for adding variants, Prawitz analysis is an all or nothing time-bound search for a contradiction. In contrast, resolution and other inference based methods store the progress made at each inference by retaining the inferred formula. Eventually localized evidence of a contradiction is produced, for example the empty clause. The required multiple variants of formulas are automatically (and often excessively) generated. But each new formula introduced interacts with others, expanding the search rapidly in both time and space.

One of the disadvantages of resolution is its reliance on conjunctive normal form. We avoid conjunctive and disjunctive normal form and the duplication of literals that their use may necessitate, since path resolution operates on formulas in negation normal form. We have found that the analysis is greatly simplified by a representation of NNF formulas which we call ‘semantic graphs.’

Path resolution allows Prawitz analysis of an arbitrary subgraph of the existing graphical representation of formulas. If such a subgraph is not large enough to demonstrate a contradiction, a path resolvent of the subgraph may be generated with respect to the entire graph. This generalizes the notions of large inference present in hyper-resolution, clash-resolution, nc-resolution, and UL-resolution.

## Keywords

Theorem Prove Conjunctive Normal Form Disjunctive Normal Form Automate Deduction Entire Graph
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## References

1. 1.
Andrews, P.B. Refutations by matings. IEEE Transactions on Computers 25,8 (Aug. 1976), 801–807.Google Scholar
2. 2.
Andrews, P.B. Theorem proving via general matings. JACM 28,2 (April 1981), 193–214.
3. 3.
Bibel, W. On matrices with connections. JACM 28,4 (Oct. 1981), 633–645.
4. 4.
Bibel, W. A Strong Completeness Result for the Connection Graph Proof Procedure. Technical Report ATP-3-IV-80.Google Scholar
5. 5.
Chang, C.L. and Lee, R.C.T. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
6. 6.
Chang, C.L., and Slagle, J.R. Using rewriting rules for connection graphs to prove theorems. Artificial Intelligence 12 (Aug. 1979), 159–178.
7. 7.
Chinlund, T.J., Davis, M., Hineman, P.G., and McIlroy, M.D. Theorem proving by matching. Bell Laboratory, 1964.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Clark, K. The Synthesis and Verification of Logic Programs. Third Conference on Automated Deduction, August 1977.Google Scholar
9. 9.
Davis, M. and Putnam, H. A computing procedure for quantification theory. JACM, vol. 7 (1960), 201–215.
10. 10.
Davis, M. Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs. Proc. Symp. of Applied Mathematics 15 (1963), 15–30.Google Scholar
11. 11.
de Champeaux, D. Sub-problem finder and instance checker — two cooperating processors for theorem provers. Proc. 4th Workshop on Automated Deduction, Austin, Texas, Feb. 1979, 110–114.Google Scholar
12. 12.
Gilmore, P.C., A Proof method for quantification theory. IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 4 (1960), 28–35.Google Scholar
13. 13.
Henschen, L.G. Theorem proving by covering expressions. J.ACM, 26,3 (July 1979), 385–400.Google Scholar
14. 14.
Kowalski, R. A proof procedure using connection graphs. J.ACM 22,4 (Oct. 1975), 572–595.
15. 15.
McCharen, J., Overbeek, R. and Wos, L. Problems and experiments for and with automated theorem-proving programs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-25,8 (Aug. 1976), 773–782.Google Scholar
16. 16.
Murray, N.V. Completely non-clausal theorem proving. Artificial Intelligence 18,1 (Jan. 1982), 67–85.
17. 17.
Murray, N.V. An experimental theorem prover using fast unification and vertical path graphs. Fourth National Conf. of Canadian Society of Computational Studies of Intelligence, U. of Saskatchewan, May 1982.Google Scholar
18. 18.
Murray, N.V. and Rosenthal, E. Semantic Graphs. Technical Report 84-12, Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY at Albany, November 1984.Google Scholar
19. 19.
Nilsson, N.J. A production system for automatic deduction. Technical Note 148, SRI International, 1977.Google Scholar
20. 20.
Prawitz, D. An improved proof procedure. Theoria 26 (1960), 102–139.Google Scholar
21. 21.
Robinson, G.A. and Wos, L. Paramodulation and theorem proving in first order theories with equality. Machine Intelligence 4, 1969, Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
22. 22.
Robinson, J.A. A machine oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J.ACM 12,1 (1965), 23–41.
23. 23.
Robinson, J.A. Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 1 (1965), 227–234.Google Scholar
24. 24.
Robinson, J.A. “Theoretical Approaches to Non-Numerical Problem Solving,” Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1970, 2–20.Google Scholar
25. 25.
Stickel, M.L. A nonclausal connection-graph resolution theorem-proving program. Proc. AAAI-82 Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Aug. 1982, 229–233.Google Scholar
26. 26.
Waldinger, R. and Manna, Z. A deductive approach to program synthesis. ACM TOPLAS 2,1 (1980), 90–121.
27. 27.
Wos, L., Carson, D. and Robinson, G. Efficiency and completeness of the set of support strategy in theorem proving. J.ACM 12,4 (1965), 536–541.Google Scholar