Link deletion in model elimination

  • Klaus Mayr
Classical Logic — Connection Method and Model Elimination
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 918)


In this paper we investigate a powerful subsumption concept which can be used to prune the search space in model elimination. The technique can be implemented easily by deleting links connecting the literals of input clauses. We study the cases in which link deletion strategies are complete and show that a large class of them is compatible with a slightly restricted form of regularity, which is the most popular refinement of model elimination. In this way, we combine two alternative and in general not necessarily compatible approaches to reduce the branching rate of the search in model elimination. One the one hand we have structural restrictions on the tableaux — on the other, with our subsumption concept, we exploit knowledge about the whole search tree. Both types of refinements have been integrated into a new proof system whose performance is demonstrated in a couple of experiments.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Bau93]
    P. Baumgartner. Linear Completion: Combining the Linear and Unit-Resulting Restrictions. Research Report 9/93, University of Koblenz, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [Bau94]
    P. Baumgartner. Refinements of Theory Model Elimination and a Variant without Contrapositives. Proceedings of the 11th. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'94. pages 90–94, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [BF94]
    P. Baumgartner and U. Furbach. Model Elimination without Contrapositives and its Application to PTTP. 12th. Conference on Automated Reasoning, CADE'94, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 814, pages 87–101. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [Eis88]
    N. Eisinger. Completeness, confluence, and related properties of clause graph resolution. Dissertation, SEKI Report SR-88-07, Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern. 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [EOP91]
    N. Eisinger and H. J. Ohlbach and A. Präcklein. Reduction rules for resolution-based systems Artificial Intelligence, 50, 141–181, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [KK71]
    R. A. Kowalski and D. Kuehner. Linear Resolution with Selection Function. Artificial Intelligence, 2:227–260, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [LSBB92]
    R. Letz, J. Schumann, S. Bayerl, and W. Bibel. SETHEO: A High-Performance Theorem Prover. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 8:183–212, 1992.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [LMG93]
    R. Letz, K. Mayr, and C. Goller. Controlled Integrations of the Cut Rule into Connection Ta bleau Calculi. Journal of Automated Reasonig, 13: 297–337, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Lov68]
    D. W. Loveland. Mechanical Theorem Proving by Model Elimination. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 15(2):236–251, 1968.Google Scholar
  10. [Lov78]
    D. W. Loveland. Automated Theorem Proving: a Logical Basis. North-Holland, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. [May93]
    K. Mayr. Refinements and Extensions of Model Elimination. 4th. Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, LPAR'93. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 698, pages 217–228. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [May95]
    K. Mayr. Verfeinerungen und Erweiterungen der Modellelimination. Dissertation, Technische Unversität München. To appear in 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [Pla90]
    D. Plaisted. A Sequent-Style Model Elimination Strategy and a Positive Refinement. Journal of Automated Reasoing, 6(4):389–402, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [SSY94]
    C.B. Suttner, G. Sutcliffe, and T. Yemenis. The TPTP Problem Library (TPTP v1.0.0 — TR Date 8.12.93). 12th. Conference on Automated Reasoning, CADE'94, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 814, pages 252–266. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Mayr
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMünchen 2

Personalised recommendations