A Framework for the Flexible Integration of a Class of Decision Procedures into Theorem Provers

  • Predrag Janičić
  • Alan Bundy
  • Ian Green
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1632)


The role of decision procedures is often essential in theorem proving. Decision procedures can reduce the search space of heuristic components of a prover and increase its abilities. However, in some applications only a small number of conjectures fall within the scope of the available decision procedures. Some of these conjectures could in an informal sense fall ‘just outside’ that scope. In these situations a problem arises because lemmas have to be invoked or the decision procedure has to communicate with the heuristic component of a theorem prover. This problem is also related to the general problem of how to flexibly integrate decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers. In this paper we address such problems and describe a framework for the flexible integration of decision procedures into other proof methods. The proposed framework can be used in different theorem provers, for different theories and for different decision procedures. New decision procedures can be simply ‘plugged-in’ to the system. As an illustration, we describe an instantiation of this framework within the Clam proof-planning system, to which it is well suited. We report on some results using this implementation.


Decision Procedure Free Variable Function Symbol Atomic Formula Predicate Symbol 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger. Strict basic superposition. In Kirchner and Kirchner [12], pages 160–174.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Bachmair, H. Ganzinger, and A. Voronkov. Elimination of equality via transformation with ordering constraints. In Kirchner and Kirchner [12], pages 175–190.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. S. Boyer and J S. Moore. Integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic. In J. E. Hayes, J. Richards, and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 11, pages 83–124, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Bundy. The use of proof plans for normalization. In R. S. Boyer, editor, Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, pages 149–166. Kluwer, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, C. Horn, and A. Smaill. The Oyster-Clam system. In M. E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 647–648. Springer-Verlag, 1990..Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. C. Cooper. Theorem proving in arithmetic without multiplication. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 7, pages 91–99. Edinburgh University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Cyrluk, P. Lincoln, and N. Shankar. On Shostak’s decision procedure for combinations of theories. In M. McRobbie and J. Slaney,editors, 13th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1104, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1996. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    User guide for the Ehdm specification language and verification system, version 6.1. Technical report, SRI Computer Science Laboratory, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Hodes. Solving problems by formula manipulation in logic and linear inequalities. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 553–559, Imperial College, London, England, 1971. The British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Janičić, I. Green, and A. Bundy. A comparison of decision procedures in Presburger arithmetic. In R. Tošić and Z. Budimac, editors, Proceedings of the VIII Conference on Logic and Computer Science (LIRA’ 97), pages 91–101, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, September 1-4 1997. University of Novi Sad.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Kapur and X. Nie. Reasoning about numbers in Tecton. In Proceedings of 8th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, October 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, editors. 15th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lindau, Germany, July 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Kreisel and J. L. Krivine. Elements of mathematical logic: Model theory. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1967.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. C. Luckham, S. M. German, F. W. von Henke, R. A. Karp, P. W. Milne, D. C. Oppen, W. Polak, and W. L. Scherlis. Stanford Pascal verifier user manual. CSD Report STAN-CS-79-731, Stanford University, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Z. Manna et al. STeP: The Stanford Temporal Prover. Technical Report STANCSTR;94-1518, Stanford University, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Nelson and D. C. Oppen. Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1(2):245–257, October 1979.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Owre, S. Rajan, J. M. Rushby, N. Shankar, and M. K. Srivas. PVS: Combining specification, proof checking, and model checking. In R. Alur and T. A. Henzinger, editors, Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, number 1102in LNCS, pages 411–414, New Brunswick, New Jersey, U. S. A., 1996. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Presburger. Über die Vollständigkeit eines gewissen Systems der Arithmetik ganzer Zahlen, in welchem die Addition als einzige Operation hervortritt. In Sprawozdanie z I Kongresu metematyków slowiańskich, Warszawa 1929, pages 92–101, 395. Warsaw, 1930. Annotated English version also available [20].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. E. Shostak. Deciding combinations of theories. Journal of the ACM, 31(1):1–12, January 1984.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Stansifer. Presburger’;s article on integer arithmetic: Remarks and translation. Technical Report TR 84-639, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, September 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Predrag Janičić
    • 1
  • Alan Bundy
    • 2
  • Ian Green
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MathematicsUniversity of Belgrade Studentski trg 16BelgradeYugoslavia
  2. 2.Division of InformaticsUniversity of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH1 1HNScotland

Personalised recommendations