Advertisement

The applicability of logic program analysis and transformation to theorem proving

  • D. A. de Waal
  • J. P. Gallagher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 814)

Abstract

Analysis and transformation techniques developed for logic programming can be successfully applied to automatic theorem proving. In this paper we demonstrate how these techniques can prune the search space of the theorem prover, by detecting inference rules and clauses that cannot contribute to proofs. The specialisation techniques developed in this paper are applied to first order clausal theorem provers, but are independent of the logic and the proof system and can therefore be applied to all theorem provers written as logic programs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D.A. de Waal. The power of partial evaluation. In Y. Deville, editor, Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, Louvain-la-Neuve 1993, Workshops in Computing, pages 113–123. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.A. de Waal and J. Gallagher. Logic program specialisation with deletion of useless clauses. In D. Miller, editor, Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Vancouver, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.A. de Waal and J.P. Gallagher. The applicability of logic program analysis and transformation to theorem proving. Technical Report CSTR-93-15, University of Bristol, September 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Frühwirth, E. Shapiro, M. Vardi, and E. Yardeni. Logic programs as types for logic programs. In 6th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Futamura. Partial evaluation of computation process — an approach to a compiler-compiler. Systems, Computers, Controls, 2(5):45–50, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Gallagher. Tutorial on specialisation of logic programs. In The ACM-SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-based Program Manipulation (PEPM'93), Copenhagen, June 1993. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Gallagher. A system for specialising logic programs. Technical Report TR-91-32, University of Bristol, November 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Gallagher and D.A. de Waal. Regular approximations of logic programs and their uses. Technical Report CSTR-92-06, University of Bristol, March 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Gallagher and D.A. de Waal. Deletion of redundant unary type predicates from logic programs. In K.K. Lau and T. Clement, editors, Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, Workshops in Computing, pages 151–167. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Gallagher and D.A. de Waal. Fast and precise regular approximation of logic programs. Technical Report TR-93-19, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Bristol, 1993. (accepted for presentation at the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C.A. Gurr. Specialising the ground representation in the logic programming language Gödel. To be published in the Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Harper, F. Honsell, and G. Plotkin. A framework for defining logics. Journal of the ACM, 40(1):143–184, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Van Hentenryck, A. Cortesi, and B. Le Charlier. Type analysis of prolog using type graphs. Technical report, Brown University, Department of Computer Science, December 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Kautz and B. Selman. Forming concepts for fast inference. In Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, California. AAAI/MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming: 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.W. Lloyd and J.C. Shepherdson. Partial Evaluation in Logic Programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 11(3 & 4):217–242, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.W. Loveland. Automated theorem proving: a logical basis. North-Holland, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.W. Loveland. Near-Horn Prolog and beyond. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 7(1):1–26, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Marriott, L. Naish, and J-L. Lassez. Most specific logic programs. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, Washington, August 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Michie, R. Ross, and G.J. Shannan. G-deduction. Machine Intelligence, 7:141–165, 1972.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.K. Gomard N.D. Jones and P. Sestoft. Partial Evaluation and Automatic Program generation. Prentice Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Neugebauer. Reachability analysis. To be published in the Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.L. Poole and R. Goebel. Gracefully adding negation and disjunction to Prolog. In E. Shapiro, editor, Third International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 635–641. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Seki. On the power of Alexander templates. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Selman and H. Kautz. Knowledge compilation using Horn approximation. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI/MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M.E. Stickel. A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover. In International Symposium on Logic Programming, Atlantic City, NJ, pages 211–217, Feb. 6–9 1984.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Sutcliffe. Linear-input subset analysis. In D. Kapur, editor, 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 268–280. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Sutter, G. Sutcliffe, and T. Yemenis. The TPTP problem library. Technical Report TPTP v1.0.0 — TR 12.11.93, James Cook University, Australia, November 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Wakayama. Case-free programs: An abstraction of definite Horn programs. In M.E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 87–101. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Yardeni and E.Y. Shapiro. A type system for logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 10(2):125–154, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. de Waal
    • 1
  • J. P. Gallagher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations